DuBrutz v. Jessup
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order granting plaintiff a new trial in the Fourth District Court, City and County of San Francisco. Morrison, J.: Action for damages for breach of contract. The jury found for the plaintiff in the sum of $250. The bill of exceptions specifies that “ the said verdict in respect to the said damages is not sustained by the evidence, and is contrary to the law and the evidence.” The other facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Department No. 1, by the Court (from the Bench)
We are of opinion that, so far as the party, against whom the verdict has gone, depends upon the circumstance that damages have been allowed in too great or too small a sum, he may rely upon the ground that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence. Even when—in the case of excessive damages—he is prepared to show that the excess indicates passion or prejudice, in such case, he may rely upon either one of these two grounds: that the evidence does not sustain the verdiet, or that the verdict is the result of passion or prejudice. Further, we…
2Cited by8 opinions
- De Molera v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Coffin v. BradburyIdaho Supreme Court · 1894
- McCloskey v. Pulitzer Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Bennett v. HobroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- United States v. EldredgeUtah Supreme Court · 1887
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.