(Download) "State Et Al. v. anderson Et Al." by Supreme Court of Montana ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State Et Al. v. anderson Et Al.
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 09, 1932
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 60 KB
Description
Eminent Domain ? View of Premises by Jury ? New Trial ? Excessiveness of Verdict ? Verdict not Conclusive ? When Order Affirmed on Appeal. Appeal and Error ? New Trial Order ? When Affirmed. 1. An order granting a new trial which does not specify the ground upon which granted will be affirmed, if proper upon any ground stated in the motion; it will also be affirmed where the order, though specifying the ground upon which granted, can be justified only on some other ground set forth in the motion. Same ? New Trial ? Conflict in Evidence ? Discretion. 2. Where the evidence is conflicting the granting or refusing to grant a new trial is lodged in the sound legal discretion of the trial court, and its action will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been a manifest abuse of discretion. Eminent Domain ? Rules of Practice in Ordinary Civil Actions Applicable in Proceedings. 3. Under section 9954, Revised Codes 1921, the rules of practice prescribed by sections 9008-9832, Id., in ordinary civil actions, are applicable in condemnation proceedings, except as otherwise provided. Same ? View of Premises by Jury ? Verdict not Conclusive ? Court may Grant New Trial. 4. Since in ordinary civil actions where the jury has viewed the premises charged by plaintiff to have been damaged, its verdict is not conclusive as to the amount awarded, the same rule prevails in condemnation proceedings under paragraph 3, above, and therefore the trial court in such proceedings may set the verdict aside and grant a new trial if it appear that the verdict is excessive. Same ? Case at Bar ? Conflict in Evidence ? Unsatisfactory Showing of Defendants ? Granting New Trial Held not Abuse of Discretion. 5. Where the evidence in a proceeding for the condemnation of land for state highway purposes was in sharp conflict as to the damages which defendants would sustain, and that of defendants was unsatisfactory in failing to show the basis upon which they computed the amount claimed by them, the trial court held not to have abused its discretion in granting plaintiffs a new trial on the ground of excessiveness of the verdict rendered after a view of the premises by the jury.
 "State Et Al. v. anderson Et Al." by Supreme Court of Montana ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}