Contracts · MBE-tested
PHILIP GEROLD, Appellant, v. THE J. M. BRUNSWICK & BALKE COMPANY, Respondent
67 Cal. 124·Supreme Court of California·1885·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
[No. 8526.
Department Two.
June 22, 1885.]
PHILIP GEROLD, Appellant, v. THE J. M. BRUNSWICK & BALKE COMPANY, Respondent.
New Tbiae—Insdeeicscency op Evidence—Vebdioi—Appeae—Discbetion. — A motion for a new trial on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial court, and an order granting a new trial on that ground will not be reversed on appeal unless a manifest abuse of discretion appears.
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco granting a new trial.
The action was brought to recover damages for the breach of a contract to employ the plaintiff as a commercial traveler. A trial by jury was had and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
T. J. Crowley, and R. Percy Wright, for Appellant.
J. E. McElrath, and J. M. Rothschild, for Respondent.
[MAJORITY — Thornton, J.]
Thornton, J.
The specifications of the particulars in which the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict are sufficient.
This appeal is from an order granting a new trial on motion of the defendant. The only ground on which the court below could have granted it was the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict; and it has been uniformly held by this court that a motion for a new trial on this ground is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the court, and that on appeal from an order of the trial court granting such new trial, this court will not reverse the order, unless it appears that there has been a manifest abuse of such discretion. (Hall v. Bark Emily, 33 Cal. 522; Phelps v. Union C. M. Co. 39 Cal. 410; Pierce v. Schaden, 55 Cal. 406; Bronner v. Wetzlar, 55 Cal. 419.) We find no abuse of discretion here, though the evidence is conflicting. (Oullahan v. Starbuck, 21 Cal. 413; Dickey v. Davis, 39 Cal. 565.)
Order affirmed.
Sharpstein, J., and Myrick, J., concurred.
Hearing in Bank denied.