Case ID: miss_23/html/0524-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

O. M. Simpson, Administrator, vs. W. H. Bowdon.
    Where the court below errs in giving instructions to the jury on mere abstract questions of law, and the verdict of the jury is in accordance with the proof in the case, and a new trial upon the'same proof should produce a like, result, this court will not disturb the verdict.
    In error from the circuit court of Attala county; Hon. R. C. Perry, judge.
    
      J. A. P. Campbell, for plaintiff in error,
    Cited Williams v. Barnes, 3 Dev. 348; Willis v. Bunn, Wright, 134; Filch v. Peckham, 16 Verm. R. 150; U. S. Dig. 470.
    
      W E. Pugh, for defendant in error.
   Per curiam.

In this case we think that a new trial ought not to be awarded. The -verdict is fully sustained by the proof, and although, as mere abstract questions of law, some of the instructions asked for by plaintiffs in error and refused by the court below were probably correct, yet, as the verdict of the jury is in accordance with the proof, and a new trial on the same proof should produce a like result, we do not feel at liberty to disturb the verdict.

Let the judgment be affirmed.