Summary

by George Sutherland Dimick v. Schiedt — Opinion of the Court

It is difficult to see upon what principle the denial of a motion for a new trial, which for centuries has been regarded as so much a matter of discretion that it is not disturbed when its only support may be a bad or inadequate reason, may nevertheless be set aside on appeal when it is supported by a good one: That the defendant has bound himself to pay an increased amount of damages which the court judicially knows is within the limits of a proper verdict.
Source: Wikisource

by George Sutherland Dimick v. Schiedt — Opinion of the Court

To me it seems an indefensible anachronism for the law to reject the like principle of decision, in reviewing on appeal denials of motions for new trial, where the plaintiff has consented to decrease the judgment or the defendant has consented to increase it by the proper amount, or to apply it in the one case and reject it in the other.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature