
    R. J. Graf v. The Vermont Savings Investment Company et al.
    
    No. 14,318.
    (83 Pac. 821.)
    Practice, Supreme Court — Motion for a New Trial — Review. Where the trial court did not state upon which of several grounds urged a motion for a new trial was allowed, and one of them was that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, it was held that this court qould not say that the motion was not allowed on that ground.
    Error from Shawnee district court; Z. T. Hazen, judge.
    Opinion filed December 9, 1905.
    Affirmed.
    
      W. H. Cowles, for plaintiff in error.
    
      W. F. Schoch, and Lee Monroe, for defendants in error.
   Per Curiam:

The only error complained of in this case is the granting of a new trial. There were several grounds set out in the motion, one of which was that the verdict of the jury was not sustained by sufficient evidence. The court did not declare upon which ground the motion was granted. This court therefore cannot say that it was not because the evidence was not sufficient to uphold it. In such cases this court will not undertake to weigh the evidence, but, where the evidence is conflicting, will confirm the order of the court granting a new trial. (Land Co. v. Lewis, 53 Kan. 750, 37 Pac. 108; McCreary, Sheriff, v. Hart, 39 Kan. 216, 17 Pac. 839; Black v. Berry, 40 Kan. 489, 20 Pac. 194; McCrum v. Corby, 15 Kan. 112.) These decisions announce the rule that has always been followed in Kansas.

The judgment is affirmed.  