Riley v. Boyer

76 Ind. 152
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1881
DocketNo. 8603
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 76 Ind. 152 (Riley v. Boyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Riley v. Boyer, 76 Ind. 152 (Ind. 1881).

Opinion

Bicknell, C. C.

This was a suit by appellants against the appellee Charles Cf. Boyer, to recover attorney’s fees. The complaint was in the common form. The answer was the general denial. The issues were tried by the court; there was a finding for the plaintiffs for forty dollars. They moved for a new trial, for the reason that the finding was contrary to the evidence, being less in amount than the lowest value of the services as sworn to by any witness. There was a judgment upon the finding, and the plaintiffs appealed. The error assigned is, overruling the motion for a new trial. The evidence is in a bill of exceptions. Due proof was made of the rendition of the services. Six witnesses, including one of the plaintiffs, swore that such services were worth a sum nearly double the amount found by the court. Their testimony was not contradicted. ISTo witness for the appellees gave any testimony as to the value of the services ; no question upon that subject was put to any of them. The appellee swore he had never employed the attorney, Denton, but he stated, on cross-examination, that he was present at the two trials of the case, and saw Denton taking part in the trial, and made suggestions to him on the trial.

In Roe v. Cronkhite, 55 Ind. 183, this court held that, where the jury trying a cause, in the face of uneontradicted evidence returns a verdict contrary thereto, such verdict should be set aside and a new trial granted. See, also, Bevan v. Tomlinson, 25 Ind. 253; Jamieson v. Miller, 54 Ind. 332; Davis v. Grater, 62 Ind. 408; Butterfield v. Trittipo, 67 Ind. 338, 342. The rule is the same as to the finding of a court.

In this case the finding was contrary to the evidence. The court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. The judgment below ought to be reversed.

Peb Cubiam. — It is therefore ordered, upon the foregoing opinion, that the judgment of the court below be and the same is hereby reversed, at the costs of the appellees.

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

Related

Acceptance Corp. of Florida v. Snider
149 N.E.2d 698 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1958)
Steele v. Anderson Company
133 N.E.2d 896 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1956)
Schmittler v. State
93 N.E.2d 184 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1950)
Egbert v. Egbert
80 N.E.2d 104 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1948)
Wright v. Peabody Coal Co.
77 N.E.2d 116 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1948)
Keltner v. Patton
185 N.E. 270 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1933)
First National Bank v. Farmers & Merchants National Bank
86 N.E. 417 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1908)
Brandt v. Hall
82 N.E. 929 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1907)
Lake Erie & Western Railway Co. v. Juday
49 N.E. 843 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1898)
Hahn v. Billings Brothers
28 A. 1027 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1894)
Timmis v. Wade
31 N.E. 827 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1892)
Indianapolis & St. Louis Railway Co v. Watson
114 Ind. 20 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1888)
City of Warsaw v. Dunlap
11 N.E. 623 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1887)
Kitch v. Schoenell
80 Ind. 74 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
76 Ind. 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riley-v-boyer-ind-1881.