Kilby v. Baker
Montana Supreme Court
Appeal from. Seventh Judicial District, Yellowstone County, Defendant’s motion for a new trial was granted by Liddell, J. Setting aside the verdict of the jury was a matter of legal discretion, vested in the court below, and this court will not interfere with it unless abuse of that discretion is shown, and especially if there be a substantial conflict of evidence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from. Seventh Judicial District, Yellowstone County, Defendant’s motion for a new trial was granted by Liddell, J. Setting aside the verdict of the jury was a matter of legal discretion, vested in the court below, and this court will not interfere with it unless abuse of that discretion is shown, and especially if there be a substantial conflict of evidence. (Hayne on New Trial and Appeal, §§ 97, 289; O’Brien v. Brady, 23 Cal. 243; Brake v. Palmer, 2 Cal. 177; Speck v. Hoyt, 3 Cal. 413; Peters v. Foss, 16 Cal. 358; Nooney v. Mahoney, 30 Cal. 226; Sharp v. Hoffman, 79 Cal. 404; Harnett…
1Opinion of the CourtBlake, C. J.
This action was commenced to recover damages for the malicious prosecution of Kilby by Baker. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the court below granted the motion of Baker for a new trial. No reasons are given in the transcript for this ruling, and the grounds which appear in the notice relate chiefly to the insufficiency of the evidence. There is a substantial conflict in the testimony of the parties, and we cannot say that there has been an abuse of judicial discretion. No questions of law for the guidance of the court at another trial have been brought to our attention,…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Chauvin v. ValitonMontana Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by2 opinions
- Murray v. HeinzeMontana Supreme Court · 1895
- Mattock v. GoughnourMontana Supreme Court · 1891