Sprout, Waldron & Co. v. Eagal
Sprout, Waldron & Co. v. Eagal
Opinion of the Court
Plaintiff company’s right to recover in this case depended mainly upon disputed questions of fact which were clearly for the exclusive determination of the' jury. The case was accordingly submitted to them by the learned trial judge with instructions which appear to be substantially accurate and adequate. The verdict in favor of defendant necessarily implies a finding of the material facts in his favor and against the plaintiff company. We find nothing in the record that requires us to sustain any of the specifications of error. There is nothing in any of them that requires discussion.
If the jury erred in rendering a verdict against the weight of the evidence (as to which we intimate no opinion), plaintiff company’s remedy was in the court below, and not here.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Sprout, Waldron & Company v. E. D. Eagal
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Appeals—Verdict against weight of evidence. Where a jury errs in rendering a verdict against the weight of the evi- . deuce the remedy of the aggrieved party is in the court below and not in the Supreme Court. Bale—Guaranty—Evidence— Verdict—Burden of proof. In an action to recover the price of a flour mill sold under a guaranty that the mill would grind a certain number of bushels per hour, the burden of proof is upon the defendant to show that the mill was not according to the guaranty, but if upon conflicting evidence the jury return a verdict for the defendant, having been properly instructed as to the burden of proof, it necessarily implies a finding of the material facts in his favor, and the Supreme Court will not disturb the judgment entered upon the verdict.