125 Ark. 488 | Ark. | 1916
(after stating the facts).
The court did not abuse its discretion in granting the appellee a new trial. There was á decided conflict in the evidence as to whether or not the note had been paid.
Witnesses on behalf of the appellant testified that the property included in the deed of trust given to secure the note in suit was sold for an amount sufficient to pay the note in full, but, on the other hand, a witness for the appellee testfied that, although the property was sold, it did not bring a sufficient amount to pay the note.
The court doubtless concluded that the testimony on behalf of the appellee was of greater weight than the testimony on behalf of appellant and that the verdict of the jury was therefore contrary to the preponderance of the evidence.
The judgment of the circuit court is therefore affirmed, and judgment will be entered here in jiavor of the appellee in the sum of $1,342.10, with interest at 6 per cent, from the 18th day of January, 1913.