INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
BARTON

U.S. | 1871-12-01
13 Wall. 603 Supreme Court of the United States (1871) Caution
Also reported at: 20 L. Ed. 708 · SCDB 1871-169 · 1871 U.S. LEXIS 1372
Cited by 4 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Barton sued an insurance company on a policy, and a jury returned a verdict in his favor. The insurance company moved for a new trial arguing the verdict was against the evidence and the court's instructions, but the trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that decisions to grant or deny motions for new trial rest entirely within the discretion of the trial court.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice SWAYNE

Mr. Justice SWAYNE stated the case and delivered the opinion of the court.

The suit was brought by Barton upon a policy of insurance. Upon looking into the record we find that the case was tried by a jury; that evidence was adduced by both parties; that the court instructed the jury, and that they found a verdict for the plaintiff, upon which judgment was duly entered. All this was done without any exception being taken by the defendant. The assurers then moved the court to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial upon the following grounds:

That the verdict was against the evidence; that it was against the law and the instructions of the court; because the verdict was uncertain and insufficient. The court over ruled the motion. To this the assurers excepted, and in their bill of exceptions have set out all the evidence given in the case. The only point to which our attention has been called by their counsel in this court is, that, according to the evidence thus set out, the plaintiff was clearly not entitled to recover. The granting or overruling of a motion for a new trial in the courts of the United States rests wholly in the discretion of the court to which the motion is addressed. This is so well settled that it is unnecessary to remark further upon the subject.*

Judgment affirmed.

*

Henderson v. Moore, 5 Crunch, 11; Barr v. Gratz’s Heirs, 4 Wheaton, 220; Doswell v. De La Lanza, 20 Howard, 29; Schuchardt v. Allens, 1 Wallace, 371.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1892)
  • Fairmount Glass Works v. CUB Fork Coal Co., 287 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1933)
    …on, 20 How. 448, 461; Pomeroy’s Lessee v. Bank of Indiana, 1 Wall. 592, 597-598; Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160, 176; Sparrow v. Strong, 3 Wall. 97, 105; Ewing v. Howard, 7 Wall. 499, 502; Chicago v. Greer, 9 Wall. 726, 735; Insurance Co. v. Barton, 13 Wall. 603, 604; Newcomb v. Wood, 97 U. S. 581, 583-584; Railway Co. v. Heck, 102 U. S. 120; Springer v. United States, 102 U. S. 586, 595; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chicago & Alton R. Co., 132 U. S. 191; Fitzgerald Constr. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 137 U. S. 98, 113;…
  • Phillips & Another v. Negley, 117 U.S. 665 (U.S. 1886)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw