History
  • No items yet
midpage
Jones v. Smith
158 F. 911
U.S. Circuit Court for the Dis...
1908
Check Treatment
J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

The verdict in this case was wholly unexpected by the court. I assumed that the jury would find in favor of the equitable plaintiff for some amount, and that the legal question — whether there was any evidence at all to go to the jury in support of his claim — could then be determined upon considering further the reservation of the defendants’ first point. As it has turned out, however, it would have been better if I had given the instruction in so many words that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, leaving the amount only to be determined by the jury. The sole reason for not taking this course was because I did not see how a verdict against him could be rendered; aftd it seemed, therefore, that a formal submission could do no harm. But, as now appears, the submission did do harm, for the unlooked-for verdict has put the record in a condition that cannot be defended.

For obvious reasons, the motion for judgment in favor of the plaintiff notwithstanding the verdict cannot be granted, and is now refused ; but the motion for a new trial must prevail.

Case Details

Case Name: Jones v. Smith
Court Name: U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
Date Published: Jan 24, 1908
Citation: 158 F. 911
Docket Number: No. 25
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.