Sweetzer v. Mellick
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Bannock County. No authorities cited upon the point decided. It is a well-established rule in this state that the court will not disturb a verdict or judgment or order denying a new trial, upon the point of the insufficiency of the evidence, where there is a substantial conflict of testimony.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Bannock County. No authorities cited upon the point decided. It is a well-established rule in this state that the court will not disturb a verdict or judgment or order denying a new trial, upon the point of the insufficiency of the evidence, where there is a substantial conflict of testimony. (Mootry v. Hawley, 1 Idaho, 543; Ainslie v. Printing Go., 1 Idaho, 641; Ghauvin v. Valiton, 7 Mont. 581, 19 Pac. 215; Reynolds v. Lincoln, 73 Cal. 191, 14 Pac. 674.) The granting of a new trial upon the ground that the former verdict was not supported by the evidence is within…
1Opinion of the CourtHuston, J.
This action was commenced in the district court for Bannock county on July 29, 1893. The plaintiffs sued to recover damages claimed to have been suffered by them by reason of the failure and default of defendant in not keeping and performing the conditions of a contract entered into by *784plaintiffs and defendant for the sale by plaintiffs, and the purchase by defendant, of a certain lot of cattle. It seems that on the first trial a verdict and judgment were found and rendered for plaintiffs. IJpon motion of defendant a new trial was granted, which trial also resulted in a verdict and judgment…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lowe v. LongIdaho Supreme Court · 1896
- Sweetser v. MellickIdaho Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by8 opinions
- Deshazer v. TompkinsIdaho Supreme Court · 1969
- Say v. HodginIdaho Supreme Court · 1911
- Riggs v. SmithIdaho Supreme Court · 1932
- Bernier v. AndersonIdaho Supreme Court · 1902
- McAllister v. BardsleyIdaho Supreme Court · 1923
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.