Cadwell v. Sherman, 45 Ill. 348 (1867)

Sept. 1867 · Illinois Supreme Court
45 Ill. 348
Philemon Cadwell v. Silas H. Sherman, by his next friend, etc.

Philemon Cadwell v. Silas H. Sherman, by his next friend, etc.

1. New trial—vm'dict against the evidence. Unless the verdict of the jury is manifestly against the weight of evidence, it will not be disturbed.

3. Former decision. The case of Parmelee v. Smith, 21 Ill. 636, is decisive of this case, upon the question as to the right of the plaintiff to hold, the property in controversy as his own.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake county} the Hon. Ebastus S. Williams, Judge, presiding.

This was an action of trover, instituted in the court below, by the appellee, Silas H. Sherman, a minor, by his next friend, Joel S. Sherman, against appellant, to recover the value of two certain war fund bonds belonging to the appellee. • The cause was tried before a jury, who found the appellant guilty, and assessed the damages against him at the sum of $226.J2. A motion for a new trial was made, which was overruled by the court, and judgment entered on " the verdict, whereupon an appeal was taken to this court.

Messrs. Blodgett, Hpton & Williams-, for the appellant.

Mr. W. S. Searls, for the appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice Breese

delivered the opinion of the Court:

*349This record presents no question of law, nor is any point of law made by the appellant. It presents purely a question of evidence, of which much was heard on the trial of the issue.

Although we might not'have found as the jury did, we cannot say the verdict is so plainly against the weight of evidence as to justify the interposition of this court.

These bonds appear to have been given the appellee, as a bounty, on his enlistment into the army, he being then a minor; and, under the authority of Parmelee v. Smith, 21 Ill. 636, he could hold them as his property. The jury have found, that he did not dispose of them to the association represented by the appellant as its treasurer, and we cannot say the evidence does not sustain them in this conclusion.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.