Johnson v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.

94 Iowa 745
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Johnson v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 91 Iowa 248
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided May 31, 1895·Published

Opinion

Given, O. J.

The appellant’s contention is that under the evidence the plaintiff was'not entitled to any verdict; and, in support of this contention, counsel proceeds to discuss the evidence. It is a familiar rule that a motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound discretion of«the court, and its exercise of that discretion will not be interfered with, unless it is manifest that it has been improperly exercised. See Digest, under head of “New Trials.” We do not think there was any abuse of this discretion in sustaining plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. As it follows from our' conclusion that the case may be retried, we refrain from discussing the evidence, or expressing any other opinion with reference to it than that, under it, there was no abuse of discretion in granting the new trial.— Affirmed.

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

Johnson v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co., 94 Iowa 745 (iowa 1895).

94 Iowa 745 (Johnson v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.