From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Mckinley

Supreme Court of California
Jan 1, 1854
4 Cal. 104 (Cal. 1854)

Opinion

         Appeal from the Superior Court of San Francisco.

         The plaintiff sued for work done on the sloop Nabob & Ruth, and a wharf and lime-kiln, all belonging to the defendants.

         The defendants McKinley and Garrioch answered, denying each of the allegations of the complaint.

         The jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, whereupon the defendant McKinley applied to the Court for a new trial, and, in support of his application, filed his own affidavit, alleging that he had been surprised at the trial, by the production of his co-defendant, Mowbray, as a witness on behalf of plaintiff. After hearing the counter affidavit of R. F. Ryan, attorney for plaintiff, the Court refused to grant a new trial, and the defendants McKinley and Garrioch appealed.

         COUNSEL

          Crockett & Page, for Appellants.

          R. F. Ryan, for Respondent.


         The affidavit of surprise is not a ground for a new trial, after verdict. It is no ground for a new trial that a party is not prepared. (5 Dana, 34; 8 Johns. 842; 15 Johns. 210; 4 Caines, 118.) Or that, upon a new trial, he could contradict a witness. (3 Greenleaf, 77.)

         JUDGES: Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt delivered the opinion of the Court. Mr. Ch. J. Murrayconcurred.

         OPINION

          HEYDENFELDT, Judge

         This Court has always refused to interfere with the verdict of a jury, where the evidence is dubious or conflicting. Nor, in such case, will we revise the discretion of the Court below, in granting or refusing a new trial.

         The assignments of error made in this case are too unsubstantial to require consideration or argument.

         Let the judgment be affirmed, with ten per cent. damages.


Summaries of

Taylor v. Mckinley

Supreme Court of California
Jan 1, 1854
4 Cal. 104 (Cal. 1854)
Case details for

Taylor v. Mckinley

Case Details

Full title:H. W. TAYLOR, Respondent, v. JAMES McKINLEY, ALEXANDER GARRIOCH and G. W…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jan 1, 1854

Citations

4 Cal. 104 (Cal. 1854)

Citing Cases

Whitney v. Stark

The evidence of Cage and Fitch shows there was a sale and delivery, and a continual change of possession; and…

Potter v. Seale

And Seale even threatened if he did not deliver up the notes he would give him trouble and annoy him.…