Livestock Gazette Publishing Co. v. Union Stockyard Co.

The Court. This is is an action to recover the possession or value of certain personal property alleged to be wrongfully detained by defendants, and damages for its detention. The court below found among other things, as follows: That the plaintiff was the owner and [449]entitled to the possession of the property described in the complaint, and that the defendants unlawfully withheld the same from the plaintiff. “ That the value of' said property is seven hundred and fifty dollars.” “That the plaintiff has not suffered any damage by reason of the detention of said personal property by the defendants, nor have the defendants been guilty of oppression, or fraud, or malice.”

And as conclusions of law the court found: “ That the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of all the personal property described in the complaint, if a delivery thereof can be had, or the value thereof, viz., the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars, in case a delivery cannot be had, with costs of suit.

Judgment was so entered, and in due time the plain- ■ tiff moved for a new trial upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision.

The motion was made upon a bill of exceptions, which stated that “Upon the trial of said cause the following evidence was submitted to the court, and which was all the evidence offered or introduced upon the matter, or relevant to the issue of damages claimed to have been suffered by plaintiff.”

There was then set out the testimony of six witnesses, which tended to show that the plaintiff had been damaged by the detention in a very considerable sum. Following this evidence was a specification of the particulars wherein the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision, as follows: “ The real question before the court being a question of damages claimed by plaintiff for the wrongful detention of its property, and the evidence-being wholly undisputed and uncontradicted as to the-damage, the decision of the court should have been for such an amount as would compensate the plaintiff.”

The motion was heard by the successor of the judge who tried the case, and granted “ upon the ground that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision.” From that order the defendants appeal.

The only point made for a reversal is that the sped» [450]