Skip to main content
· 5/8/1919

Henderson v. Dreyfus

Citations

  • 26 N.M. 541
  • 191 P. 442

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. The remission by the plaintiff of a part of the verdict, at the suggestion of the trial court, followed by a judgment for the sum remaining, does not deprive the defendant of his constitutional right to have the questipn of damages tried by a jury. - P. 547</p> <p>2. The trial court has the power to authorize a permissive remittitur and to enter judgment for the balance, and this although the amount remaining is not capable of definite computation from the evidence. P. 548</p> <p>3. A remittitur will not cure a verdict excessive by reason of prejudice and passion. The reason for the rule is that, where the amount of the verdict is the result of passion and prejudice, such passion and prejudice may, and probably did, influence the jury in 'the determination of the other issues in the case upon the decisions of which the verdict was found. P. 548</p> <p>4. The trial court may give the plaintiff the option of filing a remittitur, and thereupon enter judgment for the balance, not only where the damages are capable of ascertainment from the' evidence with reasonable certainty, but in cases of unliquidated damages, and likewise in cases where exemplary or punitive damages have been awarded. P. 548</p> <p>5. The excess of the verdict is not the determining factor in cases where a remittitur has been allowed, unless the verdict is so outrageously excessive and beyond all reason that in and of itself it clearly shows that it was the result of passion and prejudice. P. 559</p> <p>6. The trial court is in a much better position to determine whether the excessive verdict was the result Of passion and prejudice, and its determination should ordinarily be accepted. ' P. 560</p> <p>7. Evidence reviewed, and held that, while the trial court found that a verdict in a libel suit for $35,000 was excessive, there is nothing in the record to indicate that such excess was the result of passion and prejudice. P. 560</p> <p>8. Repetition of the alleged d

Judges: Parker, Raynolds, Roberts

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.