36 P.2d 256 | Ariz. | 1934
John W. Welch, hereinafter called plaintiff, brought suit against United Mutual Benefit Association, a corporation, hereinafter called defendant, to recover on two life insurance policies issued by the latter in which the former was named as beneficiary. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and defendant thereafter moved for a judgment non obstante veredicto. The motion is quite lengthy; but it is, in substance, based on the ground that the evidence does not support the verdict. The trial court, after due consideration, granted the motion, whereupon this appeal was taken. *199
There are two questions only presented for our consideration. The first is whether under our system of procedure the superior courts have jurisdiction to render a judgment non obstanteveredicto. Counsel for defendant have cited numerous cases on this point. Were the question an open one in this jurisdiction, a strong argument might be made in support of the wisdom of permitting such action. Courts are reluctant to instruct a verdict, and, in the hurry of a contested trial, unless it is so clear a motion for an instructed verdict should be granted that no reasonable argument to the contrary can be made, are very apt to deny such motion, when a later and more deliberate consideration of the evidence makes it evident that the motion should have been granted. Under such circumstances, it does seem rather useless to summon a new jury and go through the formalities of a new trial when all parties know there can be but one result, which would be reached with much less waste of time and money by granting a motion for judgment non obstanteveredicto. But this court has held specifically and emphatically, in Bryan v. Inspiration Consolidated CopperCo.,
"In the absence of a statute permitting it, a court may not render judgment notwithstanding the verdict merely because it deems the verdict unsupported by the evidence."
The case of Fornara v. Wolpe,
This court has been as liberal in applying the doctrine of harmless error as any in the country; but, as we said inKingsbury v. State,
The judgment is reversed and the case remanded, with instructions to render judgment on the verdict, and for such further proceedings thereafter as may be authorized by law.
ROSS, C.J., and McALISTER, J., concur. *201