Case Name: SCHOOF, Respondent, v. HOAGLAND, Appellant
Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: South Dakota
Decision Date: 1921-06-02
Citations: 44 S.D. 184
Docket Number: File No. 4822
Parties: SCHOOF, Respondent, v. HOAGLAND, Appellant.
Judges: POLEEY, P. J., concurs in the dissenting opinion.
Reporter: South Dakota Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 184–185

Head Matter:
SCHOOF, Respondent, v. HOAGLAND, Appellant.
(183 N. W. 132.)
(File No. 4822.
Opinion filed June 2, 1921.)
Appeal — Sufficiency of Evidence — Conflicting Evidence Warranting Different Conclusions by Different Persons, Non-error in Granting New Trial.
Where the evidence to sustain verdict was of such conflicting nature that different persons might reasonably have drawn different conclusions therefrom, order granting new trial will not be reversed.
Whiting, J., and Polley, P. J., dissenting.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Potter 'County. Hon. Joseph PI. BoTTum, Judge.
Action by William -School, against F. E. Hoagland, to recover a commission 011 alleged sale of realty. From a judgment for defendant, and. from an order granting a new trial, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Jean P. Sargent and Sutherland & Payne, for Appellant.
O'Keefe & Auldiddge, for -Respondent.

Opinion:
M-c-CO'Y, J.
Action to recover commissions on alleged sale of real estate. Verdict for defendant. From an order granting a new trial the defendant appeals.
The motion for new trial, among other things, was based on the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. We are of the view that the evidence to sustain the verdict was of such a conflicting nature that different persons might reasonably have drawn different conclusions therefrom. Under such circumstances the order granling a new trial should not be reversed.
Finding no error in (he record, the order appealed from is affirmed.