Godfrey v. Godfrey

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Godfrey v. Godfrey

106 N.W. 814, 127 Wis. 47, 1906 Wisc. LEXIS 169

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 30, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 106 N.W. 814 (Godfrey v. Godfrey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Godfrey v. Godfrey, 106 N.W. 814, 127 Wis. 47, 1906 Wisc. LEXIS 169 (Wis. 1906).

Pincite

Opinions

Kekwikt, J.

1. Tbe evidence, but not the charge, is preserved in a bill of exceptions. It is claimed on the part of the plaintiff that the court abused its discretion in setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial, and.that the evidence fully supports the verdict. There is evidence strongly tending to show that the note was without consideration and never delivered. It is apparent from, the order made by the judge below in granting the new trial that he was of the opinion that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. Under such circumstances the lower court had the right in its discretion to grant a new trial, and we cannot see that such discretion was abused. Such action will not be disturbed unless it clearly appears that there was an abuse of discretion. Eggen v. Fox, 124 Wis. 534, 102 N. W. 1054; R. Connor Co. v. Goodwillie, 120 Wis. 603, 98 N. W. 528.

2. Error is assigned because of failure to order costs paid as condition of new trial. It.is claimed by counsel for respondent that matter of costs on motion for new trial is within the discretion of the trial court. The trial court has some discretion in the matter, but where a new trial is ordered on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence this court has held that a new trial should be granted only on terms. Becker v. Holm, 100 Wis. 281, 75 N. W. 999; Wolfgram v. Schoepke, 123 Wis. 19, 100 N. W. 1054; R. Connor Co. v. Goodwillie, supra. On the record before us we hold that the new trial was granted because the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and therefore reasonable terms should have been imposed as a condition thereof. Becker v. Holm, supra; Wolfgram v. Schoepke, supra. There is nothing in the record indicating that the court regarded the verdict perverse.

By the Gourt. — The order is reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to the court'below to embody in the order granting new trial the payment of reasonable terms by defendant as a condition.

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

Kekwikt, J.

1. Tbe evidence, but not the charge, is preserved in a bill of exceptions. It is claimed on the part of the plaintiff that the court abused its discretion in setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial, and.that the evidence fully supports the verdict. There is evidence strongly tending to show that the note was without consideration and never delivered. It is apparent from, the order made by the judge below in granting the new trial that he was of the opinion that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. Under such circumstances the lower court had the right in its discretion to grant a new trial, and we cannot see that such discretion was abused. Such action will not be disturbed unless it clearly appears that there was an abuse of discretion. Eggen v. Fox, 124 Wis. 534, 102 N. W. 1054; R. Connor Co. v. Goodwillie, 120 Wis. 603, 98 N. W. 528.

2. Error is assigned because of failure to order costs paid as condition of new trial. It.is claimed by counsel for respondent that matter of costs on motion for new trial is within the discretion of the trial court. The trial court has some discretion in the matter, but where a new trial is ordered on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence this court has held that a new trial should be granted only on terms. Becker v. Holm, 100 Wis. 281, 75 N. W. 999; Wolfgram v. Schoepke, 123 Wis. 19, 100 N. W. 1054; R. Connor Co. v. Goodwillie, supra. On the record before us we hold that the new trial was granted because the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and therefore reasonable terms should have been imposed as a condition thereof. Becker v. Holm, supra; Wolfgram v. Schoepke, supra. There is nothing in the record indicating that the court regarded the verdict perverse.

By the Gourt. — The order is reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to the court'below to embody in the order granting new trial the payment of reasonable terms by defendant as a condition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 N.W. 814, 127 Wis. 47, 1906 Wisc. LEXIS 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/godfrey-v-godfrey-wis-1906.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack