Springvale National Bank v. Ashworth

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Springvale National Bank v. Ashworth

100 A. 149, 115 Me. 567, 1917 Me. LEXIS 146

DecidedMarch 16, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A. 149 (Springvale National Bank v. Ashworth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Springvale National Bank v. Ashworth, 100 A. 149, 115 Me. 567, 1917 Me. LEXIS 146 (Me. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action against the alleged endorser of two promissory notes. The defendant pleaded the general issue and, by brief statement, denied the signatures upon the notes, alleged to be his, and filed his affidavit in support of his denial. The genuineness of the signature was the chief, if not the only issue, in the case. The jury rendered a verdict for defendant and plaintiff filed the usual motion for new trial.

The grounds upon which new trials may be granted have been exhaustively considered in our decisions. It is not enough that the court might have come to a different conclusion. The credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to evidence found credible is for the jury. We are unable to say that there was no evidence, [568]*568which if believed, was. sufficient to justify the finding of the jury or that upon all the evidence it is apparent that the jury was biased or prejudiced, laboring under a misapprehension or guilty of mis-. conduct. The motion is therefore overruled.

George A. Goodwin, for plaintiff. Ruggles S. Higgins, for defendant.

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

This is an action against the alleged endorser of two promissory notes. The defendant pleaded the general issue and, by brief statement, denied the signatures upon the notes, alleged to be his, and filed his affidavit in support of his denial. The genuineness of the signature was the chief, if not the only issue, in the case. The jury rendered a verdict for defendant and plaintiff filed the usual motion for new trial.

The grounds upon which new trials may be granted have been exhaustively considered in our decisions. It is not enough that the court might have come to a different conclusion. The credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to evidence found credible is for the jury. We are unable to say that there was no evidence, [568]*568which if believed, was. sufficient to justify the finding of the jury or that upon all the evidence it is apparent that the jury was biased or prejudiced, laboring under a misapprehension or guilty of mis-. conduct. The motion is therefore overruled.

George A. Goodwin, for plaintiff. Ruggles S. Higgins, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A. 149, 115 Me. 567, 1917 Me. LEXIS 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/springvale-national-bank-v-ashworth-me-1917.