Willey v. Utterback-Gleason Co.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Willey v. Utterback-Gleason Co.

103 A. 67, 117 Me. 557, 1918 Me. LEXIS 33

DecidedMarch 11, 1918

StatusPublished

This text of 103 A. 67 (Willey v. Utterback-Gleason Co.) 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

Willey v. Utterback-Gleason Co., 103 A. 67, 117 Me. 557, 1918 Me. LEXIS 33 (Me. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

On motion by defendant, this is an action for the recovery of damages for an injury received in an automobile collision. The plaintiff charges the defendant with negligence in the operation of his car at the time of the accident, and that she was in the exercise of due care. We think she has sustained the burden of proof. The case was submitted to a jury upon pure questions of fact and they found in favor of the plaintiff. Whatever conclusion this court might come to, sitting as a jury upon this case, is not the question. The jury by our constitution and law, is as much a part of our judicial system as is the court. When their verdict comes to us for review, on the facts, we are legally bound to let that, verdict stand, if there is substantial evidence which warranted the jury in their finding.

We cannot ignore the fact, from a careful study of the testimony, that the jury did have sufficient evidence upon which to find a verdict for the plaintiff. Motion overruled. O. H. Emery, and John Nelson, for plaintiff. Donald F. Snow, and Morse & Cook, for defendant.

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

On motion by defendant, this is an action for the recovery of damages for an injury received in an automobile collision. The plaintiff charges the defendant with negligence in the operation of his car at the time of the accident, and that she was in the exercise of due care. We think she has sustained the burden of proof. The case was submitted to a jury upon pure questions of fact and they found in favor of the plaintiff. Whatever conclusion this court might come to, sitting as a jury upon this case, is not the question. The jury by our constitution and law, is as much a part of our judicial system as is the court. When their verdict comes to us for review, on the facts, we are legally bound to let that, verdict stand, if there is substantial evidence which warranted the jury in their finding.

We cannot ignore the fact, from a careful study of the testimony, that the jury did have sufficient evidence upon which to find a verdict for the plaintiff. Motion overruled. O. H. Emery, and John Nelson, for plaintiff. Donald F. Snow, and Morse & Cook, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A. 67, 117 Me. 557, 1918 Me. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willey-v-utterback-gleason-co-me-1918.