Mills v. Oregon Ry. & Navigation Co.

California Supreme Court May 3, 1894 No. No. 15033Published

Before: Harrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court's order granting a new trial based on the insufficiency of evidence is a matter of judicial discretion that is final and not subject to appellate review unless the action was arbitrary.

Issues

Whether a trial court's order granting a new trial based on the insufficiency of evidence is subject to appellate review.
Whether the trial court's specification of multiple grounds for a new trial limits the appellate court's deference to the trial court's discretion.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The statute has authorized the trial court to grant a new trial if, in its opinion, the evidence before the jury was insufficient to justify its verdict.”

“This discretion which he is called upon to exercise under the sanction of his judicial position is not subject to review in this court, and, whenever exercised, is to be regarded as final”

Synopsis

Appeal—Review of Order Granting New Trial—Specification of Grounds.—Where the superior court, in granting a motion for a new trial, specifies the grounds on which the motion is granted, if one of the grounds specified is the insufficiency of the evidence, the conclusion of the trial court upon that question will not be disturbed; and the fact that the court specifies other grounds upon which the motion was made as a reason for making the order does not change the established rule authorizing the trial court to grant a new trial, if, in its opinion, the evidence before the jury was insufficient to justify the verdict; and its discretion in granting it upon that ground is not subject to review in the supreme court, unless it is made to appear that its action was arbitrary rather than discretionary, or was made in a case where no opportunity was presented for the exercise of discretion.

Harrison, J. The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages from the defendant for failure to transport certain wheat from eastern Oregon to San Francisco. The complaint is in two counts—the first alleging that in July, 1885, the defendant made a contract in writing with the plaintiff, whereby it undertook and promised him to transport quickly and promptly from any point on its line east of the Cascade mountains to San Francisco all such quantities of wheat as he might thereafter deliver to it, and to deliver the same quickly and promptly to him at San Francisco; that in pursuance of said contract the plaintiff delivered to the defendant 8,326 tons of wheat to be transported to San Francisco, and that the defendant [358]willfully delayed the transportation of the wheat, so that it did not arrive at Sail Francisco until more than three months after it could have arrived there, and that by reason thereof the plaintiff was damaged in the sum of $35,000. The second count of the complaint sets forth the same contract, and alleges that in reliance thereon the plaintiff tendered to the defendant in Oregon for transportation to San Francisco 9,000 tons of wheat which the defendant refused to accept or to transport, and that by reason of such refusal the plaintiff suffered damage in the further sum of $35,000. The cause was tried by a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $40,000. The defendant moved for a new trial upon various grounds; among others, errors in law occurring at the trial, and excepted to by the defendant, and that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict; and in the bill of exceptions thereafter settled specified various errors of law, and also certain particulars, in which the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict. The court granted the motion for a new trial, and made its order in the following terms: “In this action the motion for a new trial having been heretofore submitted to the court for consideration and decision, and now the court being fully advised in the premises, it is ordered that said motion be, and the same is hereby, granted upon the following grounds: 1. That the evidence introduced on behalf of plaintiff on the trial of this action fails to establish the contract sued upon by plaintiff; 2. That the court erred in the said trial in admitting evidence of admissions made by defendant’s agent Muir, when conversing with plaintiff’s agent Cavanagh; and 3. That the evidence on behalf of plaintiff failed to sustain the second count.” From this order the plaintiff has appealed.

The effect of limiting in the order the grounds upon which a new trial was granted was discussed by this court in Kauffman v. Maier, 94 Cal. 269, where the court limited its order to a single error of law, and made no

Mills v. Oregon Ry. & Navigation Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief