Hurley v. Adams Express Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Hurley v. Adams Express Co.

90 A. 932, 88 Conn. 732, 1914 Conn. LEXIS 102

DecidedJune 10, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 90 A. 932 (Hurley v. Adams Express Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hurley v. Adams Express Co., 90 A. 932, 88 Conn. 732, 1914 Conn. LEXIS 102 (Colo. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The only error assigned is the refusal of the court to set- aside the-verdict-as being against-the evidence. The issues in the case were of fact, and the -only one which the evidence, as presented, left for the determination of the jury was the narrow one as to whether or not the goods, which are the subject of the suit, were delivered- to the defendant as a common carrier. - The plaintiff produced direct and positive evidence which very strongly indicated that such delivery was made. - The degree of credit and weight to be attached to this testimony was a matter peculiarly within the province of the jury, and the conclusion at which it arrived was clearly one which it reasonably could have-reached. -

• There is no- error.

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

Per Curiam.

The only error assigned is the refusal of the court to set- aside the-verdict-as being against-the evidence. The issues in the case were of fact, and the -only one which the evidence, as presented, left for the determination of the jury was the narrow one as to whether or not the goods, which are the subject of the suit, were delivered- to the defendant as a common carrier. - The plaintiff produced direct and positive evidence which very strongly indicated that such delivery was made. - The degree of credit and weight to be attached to this testimony was a matter peculiarly within the province of the jury, and the conclusion at which it arrived was clearly one which it reasonably could have-reached. -

• There is no- error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A. 932, 88 Conn. 732, 1914 Conn. LEXIS 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurley-v-adams-express-co-conn-1914.