.E.2d 891; 212 S.C. 26, 46 S.E.2d 171; 211 S.C. 526, 46 S.E.2d 152; 224 S.C. 284, 78 S.E.2d 376; 237 S.C. 573, 118 S.E.2d 340; 241 S.C. 557, 129 S.E.2d 517; 246 S.C. 158, 142 S.E.2d 858; 248 S.C. 235, 149 S.E.2d 623; 260 S.C. 235, 195 S.E.2d 389; 216 S.E.2d 871; 243 S.C. 185, 133 S.E.2d 127; 243 S.C. 376, 133 S.E.2d 833; 244 S.C. 365, 137 S.E.2d 276; 247 S.C. 497, 148 S.E.2d 161; 249 S.C. 342, 154 S.E.2d 431; 250 S.C. 499, 159 S.E.2d 47; 171 S.E.2d 159; 252 S.C. 271, 166 S.E.2d 1; 259 S.C. 362, 161 S.E.2d 781; 260 S.C. 305, 195 S.E.2d 608; 288 S.C. 90, 119 S.E.2d 231; 237 S.C. 573, 118 S.E.2d 340; 212 S.C. 26, 46 S.E.2d 176; 248 S.C. 235, 149 S.E.2d 623; 192 So.2d 706; 354 P.2d 862; 300 S.W.2d 937; 56 Cal. Rep. 223; 86 So.2d 792; 170 N.E.2d 717; 276 N.E.2d 615; 199 N.E.2d 923; 300 S.W.2d 800; 102 S.E.2d 415; 79 N.W.2d 41; 192 N.E.2d 293; 172 A.2d 316; 211 A.2d 243; 217 S.E.2d 778; 216 S.E.2d 871; 213 So.2d 386; 355 P.2d 900; 40 So.2d 360; 110 N.W.2d 206; 127 N.W.2d 291; 170 S.E.2d 91; 180 N.W.2d 408; 165 A.2d 383; 211 S.E.2d 561; 258 S.C. 1, 186 S.E.2d 813; 246 S.C. 569, 145 S.E.2d 17; 445 P.2d 169; 253 S.W.2d 264; 475 P.2d 553; 122 N.W.2d 72; 410 P.2d 35; 166 S.E.2d 119; 130 N.W.2d 688; 27 Am. Jur.2d, Eminent Domain, § 447; 30 C.J.S., Eminent Domain, § 307; 5 Nichols, Eminent Domain, § 17.3; 63 So.2d 391; 246 A.2d 677; 227 S.C. 298, 87 S.E.2d 871; 180 N.W.2d 408; 165 A.2d 383; 318 A.2d 415; 246 A.2d 677; 40 So.2d 360; 165 So.2d 257; 124 So.2d 307; 445 P.2d 169; 355 P.2d 900; 127 N.W.2d 291; 122 N.W.2d 72; 205 N.W.2d 519; 277 A.2d 546; 342 S.W.2d 642; 200 F.2d 100; 68 N.W.2d 200; 109 S.E.2d 219; 27 Am. Jur.2d Eminent Domain, §§ 315, 365; 29A C.J.S., Eminent Domain, § 140; Nichols, Eminent Domain, § 14.31, et seq.; 6 A.L.R.2d 1197; 29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain, § 140; Nichols, Eminent Domain, § 14.31(1); 6 A.L.R.2d 1197; 228 S.W.2d 925; 254 S.C. 360, 175 S.E.2d 391; 242 S.C. 411, 131 S.E.2d 264; 109 S.E.2d 219, 224. As to the Trial Judge's not having jurisdiction to grant anew trial
S.E.2d 891; 212 S.C. 26, 46 S.E.2d 171; 211 S.C. 526, 46 S.E.2d 152; 224 S.C. 284, 78 S.E.2d 376; 237 S.C. 573, 118 S.E.2d 340; 241 S.C. 557, 129 S.E.2d 517; 246 S.C. 158, 142 S.E.2d 858; 248 S.C. 235, 149 S.E.2d 623; 260 S.C. 235, 195 S.E.2d 389; 216 S.E.2d 871; 243 S.C. 185, 133 S.E.2d 127; 243 S.C. 376, 133 S.E.2d 833; 244 S.C. 365, 137 S.E.2d 276; 247 S.C. 497, 148 S.E.2d 161; 249 S.C. 342, 154 S.E.2d 431; 250 S.C. 499, 159 S.E.2d 47; 253 S.C. 393, 171 S.E.2d 159; 252 S.C. 271, 166 S.E.2d 1; 259 S.C. 362, 161 S.E.2d 781; 260 S.C. 305, 195 S.E.2d 608; 288 S.C. 90, 119 S.E.2d 231; 237 S.C. 573, 118 S.E.2d 340; 212 S.C. 26, 46 S.E.2d 176; 248 S.C. 235, 149 S.E.2d 623; 192 So.2d 706; 354 P.2d 862; 300 S.W.2d 937; 56 Cal. Rep. 223; 86 So.2d 792; 170 N.E.2d 635; 276 N.E.2d 615; 199 N.E.2d 923; 300 S.W.2d 800; 102 S.E.2d 415; 79 N.W.2d 41; 192 N.E.2d 293; 172 A.2d 316; 211 A.2d 243; 217 S.E.2d 778; 216 S.E.2d 871; 213 So.2d 386; 355 P.2d 900; 40 So.2d 360; 110 N.W.2d 206; 127 N.W.2d 291; 180 N.W.2d 408; 165 A.2d 383; 211 S.E.2d 561; 258 S.C. 1, 186 S.E.2d 813; 246 S.C. 569, 145 S.E.2d 17; 445 P.2d 169; 253 S.W.2d 264; 355 P.2d 900; 475 P.2d 553; 164 S.E.2d 734; 122 N.W.2d 72; 410 P.2d 35; 166 S.E.2d 119; 27 Am. Jur.2d Eminent Domain § 447, pp. 362-63; 130 N.W.2d 688; 27 Am. Jur.2d Eminent Domain § 447; 30 C.J.S., Eminent Domain § 307; 5 Nichols, Eminent Domain § 17.3; 63 So.2d 391; 246 A.2d 677; 227 S.C. 298, 87 S.E.2d 871; 258 S.C. 1, 186 S.E.2d 813; 180 N.W.2d 408; 165 A.2d 383; 318 A.2d 415; 246 A.2d 677; 40 So.2d 360; 165 So.2d 257; 124 So.2d 307; 445 P.2d 169; 445 P.2d 175; 355 P.2d 900; 127 N.W.2d 291; 122 N.W.2d 72; 205 N.W.2d 519; 277 A.2d 546; 342 S.W.2d 642. As to the Trial Judge's lacking jurisdictionto grant a new trial on the ground that the verdictwas contrary to the fair preponderance of the evidence: 257 S.C. 69, 184 S.E.2d 339; Circuit Court Rule 79; 242 S.C. 108, 130 S.E.2d 77. As to the order granting anew trial setting forth specific findings to support theCourt
This Court has also said a district court's discretion to grant a new trial based on insufficiency of the evidence is a legal discretion to be exercised "in the interests of justice." E.g., Munro v. Privratsky, 209 N.W.2d 745, 757 (N.D. 1973); Trautman v. New Rockford-Fessenden Co-op. Transp. Ass'n, 181 N.W.2d 754, 763 (N.D. 1970); Ferguson v. Hjelle, 180 N.W.2d 408, 413 (N.D. 1970); Leake v. Hagert, 175 N.W.2d 675, 689 (N.D. 1970); Muhlhauser v. Archie Campbell Constr. Co., 160 N.W.2d 524, 528 (N.D. 1968); Pocta v. Kleppe Corp., 154 N.W.2d 177, 183 (N.D. 1967); Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul Pac. R.R. Co. v. Johnston's Fuel Liners, Inc., 130 N.W.2d 154, 157 (N.D. 1964); Maier, 123 N.W.2d at 32; Kohlman v. Hyland, 56 N.D. 772, 779, 219 N.W. 228, 230 (1928). On other occasions, this Court has said a new trial is warranted when the jury verdict is "against the clear weight of the evidence."
Although we are more reluctant to overturn an order granting a new trial than an order denying a new trial, there must be some basis in the record for granting a new trial. Regan Farmers Union Co-Op. v. Swenson, 253 N.W.2d 327 (N.D. 1977); Fergusonv. Hjelle, 180 N.W.2d 408 (N.D. 1970). The trial court's decision to grant Old Republic a new trial in the event that the judgment n.o.v. were reversed was based on its perception that Old Republic's adjustment procedures complied with the insurance contract and that the methods Zajac used to arrive at his opinion on the percentage of crop loss were neither as reliable as the procedures used by Old Republic nor contemplated by the insurance contract.
"A motion for a new trial upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the granting of such a motion will not be disturbed upon appeal except for a manifest abuse of that discretion." Ferguson v. Hjelle, 180 N.W.2d 408, 413 (N.D. 1970). For a recent analysis of the law applicable to a motion for new trial in determining whether or not a trial court appropriately granted a new trial, see Cook v. Stenslie, 251 N.W.2d 393, 396 (N.D. 1977).
"Although . . . this court is more reluctant to overturn an order of the trial court granting a new trial than it is an order denying a new trial, there must be some basis in the record for the granting of the new trial." Ferguson v. Hjelle, 180 N.W.2d 408, 413 (N.D. 1970) The confusion of the jury which the trial court speaks of is a matter of speculation.