Tuell v. Inhabitants of Paris
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On the trial of this action a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiffs, and the defendants moved that it should be set aside; —. 1. Because the verdict is against evidence and the weight of the evidence at the trial. 2. Because the verdict was against the instructions of the presiding Judge to the jury. 3. Because the jury in assessing damages for the plaintiff, in order to find the amount of such damages, agreed to marls severally the amount of damages, and then add…
Read the full summary
On the trial of this action a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiffs, and the defendants moved that it should be set aside; —. 1. Because the verdict is against evidence and the weight of the evidence at the trial. 2. Because the verdict was against the instructions of the presiding Judge to the jury. 3. Because the jury in assessing damages for the plaintiff, in order to find the amount of such damages, agreed to marls severally the amount of damages, and then add up the whole and divide the sum total by twelve, and thus find the damages; and found that sum, so ascertained, as…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court, Tenney J. taking no part in the decision, was drawn up by
Shepley J.
This case is presented on a motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial. Several points have been presented in a written argument for the defendants.
1. It is contended, that the bridge from which the plaintiff was precipitated was not defective. It appears from the testimony, that there was a hill in the road a rod or two northerly of the bridge, described by a witness as “ a pretty steep short hill,” which one travelling from the north over the bridge must descend ; and that the bridge was…
2Cited by2 opinions
- City of Salina v. TrosperSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
- Cropper v. City of MexicoMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895