Hill v. Southwick
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Motion by tbe defendant for a new trial of an action of assumpsit, to recover tbe amount of a promissory note for $2,500, and interest, made by bim. Tbe facts of tbe ease, as well as tbe grounds of tbe motion, are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of tbe court. opposed tbe motion, and cited tbe following authorities to sustain tbe following named propositions:— A mere preponderance of proof, on tbe part of tbe defendant, would not be a sufficient ground for a new trial.
Read the full summary
Motion by tbe defendant for a new trial of an action of assumpsit, to recover tbe amount of a promissory note for $2,500, and interest, made by bim. Tbe facts of tbe ease, as well as tbe grounds of tbe motion, are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of tbe court. opposed tbe motion, and cited tbe following authorities to sustain tbe following named propositions:— A mere preponderance of proof, on tbe part of tbe defendant, would not be a sufficient ground for a new trial. Bloomer v. Grans, 24 III, 48 ; Coddington v. Cambry, 2 Hilton, (N. Y. C. P.) 528; Branch v. Devine, 18 Texas, 611. Tbe mere…
1Opinion of the CourtDureee, J.
This action was commenced January 28, 1867, and has been twice tried to the jury with verdicts for the plaintiff. The defendant moves for a new trial, one ground of the motion being that the verdict was against the evidence and the weight thereof. We have already expressed an opinion against the motion on this ground, and also upon some of the reasons assigned under the second ground. A second ground for the motion is the discovery of new and material evidence since the last trial, and the defendant having removed by his affidavit an objection which we previously regarded as fatal to the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Reab v. McAlisterCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1831
- Spalding v. VandercookNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- Ives & M'Carty v. Van Epps & ShattuckNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Stacy v. KempMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
3Cited by3 opinions
- Dalo v. ThalmannSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2005
- Depco v. Bowen Court Associates, 93-7071 (1999)Superior Court of Rhode Island · 1999
- Hammond v. RosewellSuperior Court of Rhode Island · 2008