midpage

Wilson v. American Chain & Cable Co.Wilson v. American Chain & Cable Co.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
May 20, 1965
Civ. A. No. 28172
Reporters:
,
Before:
Wood
WOOD, District Judge.

The plaintiff, following trial, and after judgment was entered for the defendant on the jury’s verdict, has moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and in the alternative for a new trial. At the close of all the evidence the plaintiff never moved for a directed verdict under Rule 50(a). This step is mandatory before a jury’s findings can be attacked by any post-trial motion. Brandon v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., 220 F.Supp. 855 (E.D.Pa.1963) aff’d per curiam 342 F.2d 519 (3 Cir. 1965). We cannot accord the effect of a directed verdict to the plaintiff’s points for charge. Massaro v. United States Lines Co., 307 F.2d 299 (3 Cir. 1962); Eisenberg v. Smith, 263 F.2d 827, 829 (3 Cir. 1959).

After consideration of the plaintiff’s motion for new trial we find no merit in the allegations contained therein, and the motion, accordingly, is denied.

Case Details

Case Name: Wilson v. American Chain & Cable Co.
Court Name: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Date Published: May 20, 1965
Citations: 38 F.R.D. 72; 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10064; Civ. A. No. 28172
Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 28172
Court Abbreviation: E.D. Pa.
Log In