Holland v. Kindregan
Holland v. Kindregan
Opinion of the Court
The learned judge below reserved the question whether there was any evidence to be submitted to the jury upon which the plaintiff can recover, and subsequently entered judgment for the defendants non obstante veredicto. In entering this judgment we think he reached the substantial justice of the case. He appears to have been led to this result, however, because, to use his own language, “ the evidence in the case at bar was overwhelming that it (the road in question) had not been closed up for several years afterward and a finding against this fact could not have been sustained.” It does not follow that because the evidence on one side may be overwhelming in the opinion of the trial judge, that the case can be withdrawn from the jur}r. If there is a conflict of evidence it must go to the jury unless the evidence on one side amounts but to a scintilla. The evidence of James Holland amounts at most to but a scintilla, and the learned judge was right in saying' that a finding against the fact in question could not have been sustained. Where the evidence is so weak that it would be the duty of the court to set aside the verdict of the jury, there is no propriety in submitting it. We think the judgment was properly entered for the defendants.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Cited By
- 17 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Evidence—Submission of case to jury—Scintilla—Title to middle of public road by deed to lands bounded by road. It does not follow that, because the evidence on one side may be overwhelming, in the opinion of the trial judge, the case can be withdrawn from the jury. If there is a conflict of evidence it must go to the jury, unless the evidence on one side amounts but to a scintilla. In 1846 land was conveyed to James Holland, described in one of its courses as running along “ the southwest side of Mill road.” In 1852, a lePort; commissioners was filed vacating Mill road.” In 1883, James conveyed a piece of ground to plaintiff, describing one of the courses as beginning on a corner “ formerly the middle of the Mill road, which was vacated by order of court about 1852, thence along the same,” etc. In 1853, James Holland sold a piece of ground to defendant’s predecessor in title, describing it as “ beginning at a stake on the southwest side of Mill road, a corner, etc., and thence along the southwest side of said Mill road,” etc. In 1891, James Holland conveyed to plaintiff the land in dispute, which is the southern half of the bed of the old Mill road. Plaintiff claimed that before the date of the deed of 1853, the Mill road had been actually closed, so that the title to the middle of the road would not pass under that deed, but the only evidence in support of the claim was that of James Holland, who testified that he put a fence in the middle of the road to mark the line of his property. Held, in an action of ejectment and verdict for plaintiff, that the evidence was but a scintilla, and that judgment was properly entered for defendants, non obstante veredicto.