Averill v. Robinson

Supreme Court of Vermont

Averill v. Robinson

70 Vt. 161

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedOctober 15, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 70 Vt. 161 (Averill v. Robinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Averill v. Robinson, 70 Vt. 161 (Vt. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Tyler, J.

There was only-one* question for the jury— whether the defendant gave the plaintiff a written notice of the cancellation of a certain contract — and this question the court submitted to them with proper instructions. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff, whereupon the defendant moved to set it aside upon the grounds that it was contrary to and unsupported by the evidence; that it was against the weight of the evidence; that it was manifestly wrong and,unwarranted and contrary to the instructions. The courf; granted the motion, set the verdict aside and expressed the opinion that the jury had either misunderstood the instructions or disregarded them. This must be construed as equivalent to saying that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; that if the jury had decided the case by the rule of' the preponderance of the [162]*162evidence, as given them in the instructions, the verdict would have been for the defendant.

While this discretionary power to set aside a verdict and grant a new trial will not be exercised arbitrarily, it is a power incident to all courts which are not controlled by statutes but act in accordance with the principles of the common law. Thompson on Trials, § 2709; 16 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law 503; Bartholomew v. Clark, 1 Conn. 472; Zaleski v. Clark, 45 Conn. 397; Newton v. Brown, 49 Vt. 16.

Judgment affirmed and cause remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Tyler, J.

There was only-one* question for the jury— whether the defendant gave the plaintiff a written notice of the cancellation of a certain contract — and this question the court submitted to them with proper instructions. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff, whereupon the defendant moved to set it aside upon the grounds that it was contrary to and unsupported by the evidence; that it was against the weight of the evidence; that it was manifestly wrong and,unwarranted and contrary to the instructions. The courf; granted the motion, set the verdict aside and expressed the opinion that the jury had either misunderstood the instructions or disregarded them. This must be construed as equivalent to saying that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; that if the jury had decided the case by the rule of' the preponderance of the [162]*162evidence, as given them in the instructions, the verdict would have been for the defendant.

While this discretionary power to set aside a verdict and grant a new trial will not be exercised arbitrarily, it is a power incident to all courts which are not controlled by statutes but act in accordance with the principles of the common law. Thompson on Trials, § 2709; 16 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law 503; Bartholomew v. Clark, 1 Conn. 472; Zaleski v. Clark, 45 Conn. 397; Newton v. Brown, 49 Vt. 16.

Judgment affirmed and cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 Vt. 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/averill-v-robinson-vt-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack