In Doyle v. Dixon, which was an action for breach of contract, the language of the court was: "When the damages awarded by the jury appear to the judge to be excessive he may either grant a new trial absolutely, or give the plaintiff the option to remit the excess, or a portion thereof, and order the verdict to stand for the residue."

In Doyle v. Dixon (97 Mass. 208) it was held that an agreement not to engage in a certain kind of business at a particular place for a specified term of years is not within the Statute of Frauds, which requires agreements not to be performed within one year from the making thereof to be in writing, in order that an action may be maintained thereon.