American Express Co. v. Bruce, 50 Ill. 201 (1869)

Jan. 1869 · Illinois Supreme Court

50 Ill. 201

The American Express Company v. Augustus Bruce.

New trial—weight of evidence. Where the verdict is not clearly against the evidence, the judgment will not be disturbed.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of McLean county; the Hon. John M. Scott, Judge, presiding.

This was an action brought originally before a justice of the peace, by appellee, to recover the value of a certain package, said to contain $46, consigned at Heyworth, Illinois, to appellant, to carry and deliver to appellee at Clinton, Michigan. On arriving at its destination, the package, it is asserted by appellee, contained only $36.

On trial before a justice, appellee recovered the amount claimed, and an appeal was had to the McLean Circuit Court, where judgment was again rendered against the Express Company. Thence an appeal has been prosecuted to this court.

Messrs. Williams & Burr, for the appellants.

Mr. William H. Hanna, for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Lawrence

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The question in this case is purely one of fact. Did the package contain forty-six or only thirty-six dollars when it was delivered to the express company? The testimony of the plaintiff’s agent is in direct conflict with that of the agent for the company. The verdict, both before the justice and in the circuit court, was for the plaintiff. We doubt if we should have found this verdict. We are inclined to think the true explanation of this matter is. that the plaintiff’s agent miscounted the money, an article of which he says he handled but little, and was not skilled in counting, rather than that ten dollars of it were purloined after having been deposited with defendant’s agent. Still, while we might be inclined to take this view of the matter if sitting as jurors, yet we cannot say this verdict is clearly against the evidence, and if we were to reverse the judgment on this ground, in a case where the testimony is so nearly balanced, we should be departing from the established rules of the court.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.