Case Name: Moses v. Old Dominion Iron and Nail Works Co.
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1885-02-25
Citations: 82 Va. 19
Docket Number: 
Parties: Moses v. Old Dominion Iron and Nail Works Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 19–32

Head Matter:
Richmond.
Moses v. Old Dominion Iron and Nail Works Co.
February 25th, 1885.
Practice at Common Law—New trial.—Where, under the rule of this court to reject all the parol evidence of the exceptor to the refusal of the court below to award a new trial, and to give full weight and credit to the exeeptee’s evidence, this court is left without means to determine whether the court below erred or not, the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed.
Error to judgment of circuit court of city of Richmond, rendered oth July, 1883, in an action for damages wherein Alfred Moses was plaintiff and the Old Dominion Iron and Nail Works Company was defendant. Plaintiff owned a large warehouse in said city, built in 1866, for the purposes of a wholesale commission business, and constantly used as such up to the leasing thereof by the defendant company, January 1, 1876, by which it was used for storing nails and bar-iron, after having in its own way, according to its own plans and by means of its own servants, attempted to make the building suitable for its purposes. On March 28, 1876, the company began to store quantities of iron in the building, placing the bulk thereof on the western side, and that night said western side fell, the floors on that side giving away. The repairs cost plaintiff $2,118.94, and he sued to recover damages. The jury found for the plaintiff and assessed his damages at $674.28 without interest. This verdict the plaintiff moved to set aside, because contrary to the evidence and because of the inadequacy of the damages. The court oyerruled the motion. Plaintiff excepted, and the evidence being certified, the plaintiff obtained a writ of error to this court.
This case is sequel to the case under the same style reported in 75 Va. 95, and is the same case reported in 81 Va. 22, and is republished in order that Judge Lacy’s dissenting opinion may appear.
A. M. Keiley and Pegram & Stringfellow, for the plaintiff in error.
H. Marshall, for the defendant in error.

Opinion:
Hinton, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a complaint of a judgment of the circuit court of the city of Richmond refusing a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and because of the inadequacy of the damages.
The case was submitted to the jury under proper instructions, which directly presented to them the question whether the destruction of the building was caused by the alleged tempest, the improper construction of the building originally, or by the overloading of the defendant company; and they found a verdict for the plaintiff for "$674.28 without interest." It is insisted for the plaintiff in error that the finding "for the plaintiff" decided the only disputed question in the case—that is, who was the party liable for the loss. That being determined, the quantum of damages was fixed by the evidence beyond dispute at a much larger sum.
Doubtless it is true, where the case comes up properly, that a new trial will be granted where the damages are grossly inadequate, or where the law itself prescribes the measure of damages if the plaintiff should recover, or where the action is on a contract for a fixed sum, and by some mistake or misapprehension, or through passion or prejudice, the jury have awarded a lesser amount. But, unfortunately for the plaintiff in error, his case comes up upon a certificate of evidence, instead of a certificate of facts; and, under the well settled rule of this court, it can take no cognizance of the case unless, after rejecting all the oral evidence of the excepting party and giving full force and credit to the evidence of the adverse party, the judgment still appears to be wrong. Bennett v. Hardaway, 6 Munf. 125; Danville Bank v. Waddill, 31 Gratt. 475; Dean's Case, 32 Gratt. 916; Baccigalupo's Case, 33 Gratt. 807; Creekmur v. Creekmur, 75 Va. 430; Taylor's Case, 77 Va. 697; Muse v. Stern, 82 Va., post.
Applying this rule, and discarding all the oral evidence of the plaintiff in error, it not only does not appear that he has been damaged, but, on the contrary, it does affirmatively appear from the evidence of the defendant in error that the destruction of the building was occasioned either by the tempest or its original faulty construction; and that, therefore, he, if any one, and not the plaintiff in error, has been prejudiced by the verdict. However this may be, it is perfectly clear that, under the rule of this court, we are left without the means of determining whether the circuit court erred or not. As, therefore, the defendant in error does not complain, the verdict must be affirmed.