Holmes v. J. Simon & Co.
Holmes v. J. Simon & Co.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The peremptory instruction should not have been given. When “ the evidence is sufficient to warrant a verdict for the plaintiff (or other party) in any view of it which might be legally taken,” a peremptory instruction to find for the other party cannot properly be given. Railroad Co. v. Boehms, 70 Miss., 11. It will not do for the judge to take the case from the jury and decide it himself, simply because he thinks it should be decided that way. It is only where a verdict could not be permitted to stand, if rendered, that the judge may rightly anticipate the result, and peremptorily instruct the jury.
In this case, it is by no means clear that a verdict for the claimant might not be permitted to stand. The fact that the judges, if jurors, might find for the plaintiff, is not decisive of the propriety of disturbing a verdict found without any error of the court in the trial. We not unfrequently refuse to set aside verdicts we would not have given. Such is our system, and it must be upheld in the manner stated!
Reversed, and remanded for a nexo trial.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- G. W. Holmes v. J. Simon & Co.
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Peremptory Instruction. When improper. Question of fact. When the evidence is sufficient to warrant a verdict for a party in any view of it which may be legally taken, a peremptory instruction in favor of his opponent should not be given. Bailroad Co. v. Boehms, 70 Miss., 11. 2. Same. Supreme court. Affect of verdict. It is only where a particular verdict, if rendered, could not be permitted to stand that the court may anticipate the proper result, and peremptorily instruct the jury. That the judges of this court would have found the facts otherwise, is not decisive of the propriety of disturbing a verdict found without any error of the court.