Heath v. Scott

McKee, J. This was an action to recover money obtained upon a promissory note given by the defendant on the 9th of October, 1867, payable on demand to the order of the plaintiffs, in the sum of one thousand dollars, with interest at the rate of two per cent per month until paid. The action was commenced on the 23d of March, 1880, thirteen years after maturity of the note; but soon after giving the note, the defendant, upon his own petition, was declared a bankrupt by the United States District Court for the State of California; and on the 23d of October, 1880, by the judgment of said court, he was discharged from all his debts except such as were created by fraud. And the charge is, that the debt for which this note was given, and which was provable, and in fact was proved, filed, and registered in the bankruptcy court as a debt against the estate of the bankrupt, was created by the fraud of the defendant.

Assuming that the complaint contained a sufficient statement of a cause of action, the defendant answered it; and, by his answer, specifically denied the charges of fraud made against him. There was, therefore, but one issue in the case: Was the defendant guilty of fraud in creating the debt for which the promissory note to the plaintiffs was given? If he was not, the action could not be maintained, for the plaintiffs in their complaint alleged and admitted the discharge.

Upon the issue questions were framed and submitted to a jury, answers to which were returned and filed as a special verdict ; and a general verdict was also rendered for the defendant. Being dissatisfied with the verdicts, plaintiffs moved for a new trial upon the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdicts, and that they were against law, and on the ground of surprise, and of errors of law in the rulings of the court at the trial.

Both verdicts were rendered upon substantially conflicting testimony as to the nature of the transaction and the conduct of parties to the transaction by which the debt in controversy was created. Of the credibility of the witnesses who testified, and the [550]weight to be given to the testimony of each of them, the jury were the exclusive judges. Conclusions reached as to the weight of the testimony of each witness, and inferences drawn by the jury from the facts proved by their testimony, and from the conduct of the parties, are not reviewable on appeal. An appellate court does not go behind conclusions and inferences drawn by a jury, for the purpose of examining conflicting testimony and determining its sufficiency or insufficiency to justify a special or general verdict. The presumption is that the evidence was sufficient, and, being sufficient, we must accept the verdict as conclusive of the facts covered by it; and if the conclusion of law be logically drawn from the facts, the decision is not contrary to law; therefore a new trial cannot be granted except for prejudicial' errors occurring at the trial, or for surprise, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against, or for some other of the causes specified in section 657 of the Code of Civil Procedure.