[DOWNLOAD] "Butler v. Paradise Valley Irr." by Supreme Court of Montana * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Butler v. Paradise Valley Irr.
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 27, 1945
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 59 KB
Description
1. New trial ? Inadequacy of damages not ground for. Where the jury returned a verdict for the defendant, plaintiffs were not entitled to a new trial on the ground that the damages were inadequate, even if this were a ground for a new trial, though not specifically named in the statute. 2. Waters and Water Courses ? Liability for flooding. Any liability of the irrigation district for flooding crops and land depended on its negligence. 3. Appeal and Error ? Substantial evidence to support findings. On plaintiffs appeal from a judgment for defendant irrigation district in an action to recover damages for flooding crops and land, the only province of the Supreme Court was to determine whether there was substantial evidence in the record justifying the finding that there was no negligence by the defendant proximately causing damage to the plaintiffs. 4. Waters and Water Courses ? Finding of negligence warranted. Conflicting evidence as to causes of flooding was sufficient to warrant the finding that the district was negligent in operating and maintaining its distributing system. 5. Trial ? Appeal and Error ? Conflicting evidence for jury ? Supreme Court will not interfere. The reconciliation of conflicts in evidence is for the jury and the Supreme Court could not interfere with the jurys verdict for the defendant where one or more of the affirmative defenses was supported by substantial, though conflicting, evidence. 6. New Trial ? Not granting no abuse of discretion. Where one of the plaintiffs moving for a new trial for newly discovered evidence made an affidavit that he interviewed absent witnesses before the trial and that they informed affiant that they knew nothing pertinent to the issue, and that, in any event, they did not desire to testify, and plaintiffs wife made no affidavit that she used any diligence to persuade such witnesses who were her brother and members of his family to tell what they knew about the case, the trial courts denial of the motion for lack of diligence was not abuse of discretion. 7. New Trial ? Granting of on newly discovered evidence must be likely to produce different result. The matter of granting or refusing a new trial for newly discovered evidence rests largely in trial courts discretion and such court is presumed to have considered whether the newly discovered evidence would be likely to produce a different result on a new trial.