M'Donough v. De Armas

Supreme Court of Louisiana

M'Donough v. De Armas

6 Mart. (N.S.) 44

DecidedMay 15, 1827

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Mart. (N.S.) 44 (M'Donough v. De Armas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

M'Donough v. De Armas, 6 Mart. (N.S.) 44 (La. 1827).

Pincite

Opinion

Porter, J.

delivered the opinion of the court, Tins action is brought on several notes ° ^an(^ made by the deceased. Among other means of defence, simulation and compensation were pleaded by the defendants.

The cause was tried by a jury, who allowed a considerable sum in compensation, and found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the balance due. With this verdict he was dissatisfied, and moved in the court below for a new trial on several grounds, one of which was, that the verdict was contrary to the weight of evidence. The judge refused the application, and the plaintiff has appealed, and renewed here his demand, that the cause be heard before another jury.

We think the judge below erred in refusing the new trial. We are unable to concur with the jury in the view they have taken of the case, and it is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the district court be annulled, avoided and reversed, that the cause be remanded for a new trial, and that the appellees pay the costs of the appeak

Morse for the plaintiff, Seghers, and J?e Armas for the defendants.

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

Porter, J.

delivered the opinion of the court, Tins action is brought on several notes ° ^an(^ made by the deceased. Among other means of defence, simulation and compensation were pleaded by the defendants.

The cause was tried by a jury, who allowed a considerable sum in compensation, and found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the balance due. With this verdict he was dissatisfied, and moved in the court below for a new trial on several grounds, one of which was, that the verdict was contrary to the weight of evidence. The judge refused the application, and the plaintiff has appealed, and renewed here his demand, that the cause be heard before another jury.

We think the judge below erred in refusing the new trial. We are unable to concur with the jury in the view they have taken of the case, and it is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the district court be annulled, avoided and reversed, that the cause be remanded for a new trial, and that the appellees pay the costs of the appeak

Morse for the plaintiff, Seghers, and J?e Armas for the defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Mart. (N.S.) 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mdonough-v-de-armas-la-1827.