Burt v. Stuart
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Canyon County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge. Proceeding to assess benefits and damages in drainage district. “Where the testimony in such a ease is conflicting, and from it reasonable men might draw different conclusions, since there is evidence to support both theories of the case, the judgment of the trial Court will not be disturbed.”
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Canyon County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge. Proceeding to assess benefits and damages in drainage district. “Where the testimony in such a ease is conflicting, and from it reasonable men might draw different conclusions, since there is evidence to support both theories of the case, the judgment of the trial Court will not be disturbed.” (iJones v. Yanausdeln, 28 Ida. 743, 156 Pac. 615; Little v. Little, 29 Ida. 292, 158 Pac. 559; Hufton v. Hufton, 25 Ida. 96, 136 Pac. 605.) Even if it could be construed as an equity case, this…
1Opinion of the Court
MCCARTHY, District Judge.
The only question before this court is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict of the jury assessing benefits to the lands of appellants, and assessing the damages of appellant W. S. Stuart.
The general rule is that this court will not disturb the verdict of a jury or the judgment of a trial court because of conflict in the evidence when there is sufficient proof, if uncontradicted, to sustain it. (Raft River Land & Livestock Co. v. Laird, 30 Ida. 804, 168 Pac. 1074.)
Counsel for appellants contend that this rule does not apply to this proceeding…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Raft River Land & Livestock Co. v. LairdIdaho Supreme Court · 1917