Woolfolk v. Tate

Supreme Court of Missouri

Woolfolk v. Tate

25 Mo. 597

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedOctober 15, 1857

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 25 Mo. 597 (Woolfolk v. Tate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Woolfolk v. Tate, 25 Mo. 597 (Mo. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

Richabdson, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was tried in the Marion circuit court, at the July term, 1855, before Judge Wells. The verdict was for the plaintiff, and thereupon the defendant filed his motion for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, and that the court admitted illegal testimony. The motion was not heard by the judge who tried the cause, but was continued until the next term, and in the mean time Marion county, by an act of the general assembly, was included in another circuit, in which Judge Redd presided. At the February term, 1856, the motion was called and overruled for the reason, as assigned by the court, “ that the cause having been tried before Judge Wells, and not having heard the evidence as delivered by the witnesses on the stand, and not having the opportunity which the jury had of deciding upon the credibility of the witnesses, by the manner in which that evidence was given, the court is unwilling to disturb the verdict on the ground that it is against the weight of evidence.” Without expressing any opinion whatever on the evidence or the merits of the motion, we think that, under the circumstances, the court ought to have sustained the motion and ordered a new trial. A party to a suit has the same right to have his motion for a new trial heard and duly considered as he has to institute or defend an action. [599]*599An acknowledged ground for granting new trials is, that a verdict is against the weight of evidence; and if, in this case, the court was embarrassed by the circumstances, and could not pass on the merits of the motion, it ought to have directed a new trial. It is better to allow a new trial, where the court for any cause can not consider the merits of an application for that purpose, than to refuse it; for by denying the motion, without giving a party the benefit of being heard or of having his reasons considered, irreparable injury may be done, while on the other hand the prevailing party in the verdict will only suffer by delay, and generally will secure another verdict if he is entitled to it.

With the concurrence of the other judges, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

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

Richabdson, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was tried in the Marion circuit court, at the July term, 1855, before Judge Wells. The verdict was for the plaintiff, and thereupon the defendant filed his motion for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, and that the court admitted illegal testimony. The motion was not heard by the judge who tried the cause, but was continued until the next term, and in the mean time Marion county, by an act of the general assembly, was included in another circuit, in which Judge Redd presided. At the February term, 1856, the motion was called and overruled for the reason, as assigned by the court, “ that the cause having been tried before Judge Wells, and not having heard the evidence as delivered by the witnesses on the stand, and not having the opportunity which the jury had of deciding upon the credibility of the witnesses, by the manner in which that evidence was given, the court is unwilling to disturb the verdict on the ground that it is against the weight of evidence.” Without expressing any opinion whatever on the evidence or the merits of the motion, we think that, under the circumstances, the court ought to have sustained the motion and ordered a new trial. A party to a suit has the same right to have his motion for a new trial heard and duly considered as he has to institute or defend an action. [599]*599An acknowledged ground for granting new trials is, that a verdict is against the weight of evidence; and if, in this case, the court was embarrassed by the circumstances, and could not pass on the merits of the motion, it ought to have directed a new trial. It is better to allow a new trial, where the court for any cause can not consider the merits of an application for that purpose, than to refuse it; for by denying the motion, without giving a party the benefit of being heard or of having his reasons considered, irreparable injury may be done, while on the other hand the prevailing party in the verdict will only suffer by delay, and generally will secure another verdict if he is entitled to it.

With the concurrence of the other judges, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 Mo. 597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woolfolk-v-tate-mo-1857.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack