Gollin v. Lyle — 3 Cal. Unrep. 621

Majority

p. 621

GOLLIN v. LYLE.

No. 14,294;

November 12, 1892.

31 Pac. 456.

Headnote

New Trial—Discretion.—A Motion for a New Trial on the ground that the evidence does not sustain the verdict, is addressed to the discretion of the court, and its judgment thereon will not be disturbed unless clearly abused.

APPEAL from Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco; John Hunt, Judge.

p. 622

Ejectment by Walter W. Gollin against Mary E. Lyle. There was a verdict for defendant. From an order granting a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J. D. Sullivan (W. H. L. Barnes of counsel) for appellant; Lloyd & Wood for respondent.

This is an action of ejectment. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. The jury found in favor of defendant; and the court below, upon motion regularly made by plaintiff, granted a new trial. The defendant appeals from the order granting a new trial. The motion was made upon the ground, among others, of the “insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict”; and that was the main ground upon which the motion was granted, as appears from an opinion delivered by the trial judge. In such a case the trial court has a wide discretion, and we do not disturb its rulings, unless it clearly appears to us that such discretion has been abused; and it is quite clear that there was no such abuse of discretion in the case at bar.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

We concur: Sharpstein, J.; De Haven, J.