153 P. 860 | Okla. | 1915
Margaret Cromley, plaintiff below, sued Bob and George Cunningham, defendants below, in district court, Murray county, to recover $1,760 advanced Bob, and also to recover $1,000 additional as damages. She claims that defendants formed a conspiracy whereby they designedly procured her money and refused to account for same.
The case was tried to the court and jury, and after instructions the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff *267 against Bob, but in favor of George against the plaintiff. A motion setting up most of the statutory grounds for a new trial was filed against George Cunningham. Affidavits and counter affidavits were also filed, and the court on the 4th day of January, 1914, by order, in general terms, sustained the motion and granted a new trial, from which order defendant George Cunningham appeals.
The question for decision is, whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion and awarding a new trial. This question has quite frequently been decided by this court adversely to defendant's contention. In St. Louis S. F. R.Co. v. Wooten,
In the case supra, "as the order shows, no reason is given by the court for this action":
"Beginning with the early opinions of the Oklahoma Territorial Supreme Court, it has been held in an unbroken line of decisions that, in the matter of granting a new trial, the discretion of the trial court is very wide; indeed, that it is so extensive that its action in doing so will not be set aside on appeal unless it clearly appears that in granting the new trial it has taken an erroneous view of some pure, unmixed question of law, and that this erroneous view resulted in the order. Trower v. Roberts,
In Shawnee Fire Ins. Co. v. School Board of School DistrictNo. 31, Grady County,
"The order of court granting a new trial does not in any way indicate upon what ground or for what reason the court based its conclusion. The order simply recites: [General order sustaining motion.] * * * Of course it would be impossible, from this record as above shown, to declare that the court, in sustaining the motion for a new trial, committed error upon some pure and unmixed question of law, not involving a consideration of the facts. Not being able to so declare, we are prevented from reversing this case and disturbing the discretion of the court exercised herein, by the decisions above mentioned, to which we might add a vast array of cases not cited therein."
We are therefore of the opinion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and recommend that the judgment be affirmed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.