Case Name: John Halliday v. A. Lanata
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1873-05
Citations: 25 La. Ann. 373
Docket Number: No. 2776
Parties: John Halliday v. A. Lanata.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 373–378

Head Matter:
No. 2776.
John Halliday v. A. Lanata.
Where the judge of the District Court was of opinion that the verdict of the jury was indirect and flagrant violation of law and evidence, and in utter disregard of his charge,, he should have set the verdict aside and granted a new trial, as asked for.
It is impossible to sanction the practice, become too common, that an inferior judge should sign a judgment which he believes and avers to be wrong, in the hope that this court will set it aside.
Where counsel for appellee complained that, before this court should have set aside the verdict of the jury and remanded the case, it should have decided that their finding was erroneous;
Held — That there was force in this criticism of the decree, and that a rehearing should be granted as prayed for.
APPEAL from the Sixth District Court, parish of Orleans. Oooleyr J. Trial by jury.
Fellows and Mills, for plaintiff and appellee.
Poselms and Philips, for defendant and appellant.

Opinion:
Morgan, J.
In the record we find the following extract from the minutes of the lower court:
"Alfred Philips, Esq., of counsel for defendant, moved the court that said defendant be allowed the following order, to wit:
" On motion of C. Roselius and Alfred Philips, of counsel for defendant, it is ordered, that plaintiff do show cause, on-- next, the--instant, at ten A. M., why a new trial should not be granted herein, on the grounds filed.
"Whereupon, the court, for oral reasons assigned, considering the verdict of the jury to be in violation of law and the evidence, and in direct and flagrant violation of the charge of the court to the jury, and for the purpose of expediting justice by appeal to the Supreme Court;
"Ordered, that said motion be overruled, and the new trial asked for be refused."
If the judge of the district court was of the opinion that the verdict of the jury was, as he says it is, in direct and flagrant violation of law and the evidence, and in utter disregard of his charge, he should have set the verdict aside, and granted a new trial. A different jury might render a verdict in accordance with law and equity, and which may be satisfactory to both parties. It is as much the province of the district courts to set aside the verdict of a jury when contrary to law, as it is ours; and we can not sanction the practice, become too common, that an inferior judge should sign a judgment which he believes, and avers, to be wrong, in the hope that we will set it aside. It'is as much bis duty to see justice done between the parties litigating their rights before him, as it is ours. Why ho should render a judgment which he knows to be wrong, any more than we should, we are at a loss to imagine.
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the verdict of the jury herein rendered, beset aside; that the judgment of the lower court be avoided and reversed, and that the case be remanded to the lower court, to be proceeded in according to law; appellee to pay costs of appeal.