LAWYERS' REPORTS ANNOTATED. NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT. W. A. BENTON v. Ruffin V. COLLINS, Appt. (........N. C.........) 1. A grant of a new trial on 2. one or more of several issues is in the sound discretion of the court, where the matter involved is entirely distinct and separable from the matters involved in the other issues. A new trial on the single issue of the amount of damages may be allowed, although this cuts off some evidence which, if introduced on other issues, might mitigate damages, where all such evidence is admissible on the issue as to damages. 3. Inadequacy of damages may be the ground of setting aside a verdict and ordering a new trial. 4. The discretion of the court in setting aside a verdict for inadequacy of damages is not reviewable on appeal. 5. 6. 7. An allotment of a homestead, and a sale of the excess of the owner's lands by a commissioner, may be ordered by a court of equity when it has control of the lands and all the parties interested are before the court. The appointment of commissioners to set off a homestead may be made by the clerk when instructed by the court, as the clerk is but the hand of the court in the matter. The fact that lands are situated in two counties does not prevent the court from making an order for setting off a homestead and selling the lands which are in excess of the homestead to satisfy a judgment against the owner. (October 24, 1899.) NOTE.-Inadequacy of damages as a ground for | verdict will not be disturbed for inadequacy, cir setting aside a verdict. 1. Power and duty of the court as to. II. Rule in contract actions. III. Rule in actions with relation to property and property rights. IV. Rule in actions for personal injuries. a. Generally. b. Actions for libel and slander. c. Actions for malicious prosecution d. Actions for assault and battery and e. Actions for personal injuries caused 1. General rules as to. 2. What sufficient to show bias or 1. Statutory provisions as to smallness VI. Who entitled to relief. VII. Matters of procedure. VIII. Increase of verdict by court. I. Power and duty of the court as to. The power and duty of the court with reference to setting aside verdicts for inadequacy would seem to depend to a large extent upon the measurability of the injury suffered according to If the injury can be thus some legal standard. measured, and the verdict is inadequate, it is not only within the power, but the imperative The rule is duty, of the court to set it aside. different, however, where there is no legal stanBut even dard of measurement of the injury. In such case it will be seen that while usually a 3 cumstances may exist under which the court would be called upon to act. The court has power to set aside a verdict and grant a new trial on the ground of Inadequacy where the ends of justice seem to require it, as well as and upon the same principle as on the Platz v. Cohoes, 8 ground of excessiveness. Abb. N. C. 392; Mariana v. Dougherty, 46 Cal. 26; Hackett v. Pratt, 52 Ill. App. 346. A verdict for a grossly inadequate amount stands upon no higher ground in legal principle, nor in the rules of law, than a verdict for an excessive or extravagant amount, and a new trial may be granted upon the one ground as McDonald v. Walter, well as upon the other. 40 N. Y. 551. And see BENTON V. COLLINS. And the court may grant a new trial where the damages are inadequate, as well as where they are excessive, if the case is such as clearly to indicate that the jury had acted under the influence of partiality, bias, or a perverted judg ment. Richards v. Sandford, 2 E. D. Smith, 349. So, it is within the province of an appellate court to revise and set aside a verdict for insufficiency as well as for excessiveness of damages. But see Paul v. Leyenberger, 17 Ill. App. 167. BENTON V. COLLINS, and Jung v. Keuffel, 144 N. Y. 381, 39 N. E. 340, infra, VII. And while the estimation of damages is peculiarly within the province of the jury where there is no legal measure and the damages are 33 |