304 F.2d 758 (8th Cir. 1962), 16886, St. Paul Hospital & Cas. Co. v. Helsby

• Docket Nº: 16886.
• Citation: 304 F.2d 758
• Party Name: ST. PAUL HOSPITAL AND CASUALTY COMPANY and Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Association, Appellants, v. Walter HELSBY, Appellee.
• Case Date: June 30, 1962
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Page 758

304 F.2d 758 (8th Cir. 1962)

ST. PAUL HOSPITAL AND CASUALTY COMPANY and Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Association, Appellants,

v.

Walter HELSBY, Appellee.

No. 16886.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

June 30, 1962

Donald B. Smith, of Randall, Smith & Blomquist, St. Paul, Minn., for appellants; John P. Vitko, St. Paul, Minn., and Hugh V. Plunkett, Jr., Austin, Minn., on the brief.

Irvin E. Schermer, of Schermer & Gensler, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.

Before VOGEL and RIDGE, Circuit Judges, and DEVITT, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Walter Helsby, plaintiff-appellee, instituted this action against the defendants-appellants to recover damages for breach of an agency contract, claiming that the appellants wrongfully, unlawfully and unjustifiedly breached the contract, to his damage in the amount of $400,000. The case was tried to a jury, which found in favor of the appellee and assessed his damages at $156,000. In considering a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial, the District Court first denied the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. As to the alternative motion for a new trial, the District Court denied it also, but with the provision that within thirty days thereof the appellee enter a remittitur to the extent of $101,000. Appellee consented to the remittitur, thus reducing the jury verdict from $156,000 to $55,000. Thereupon appeal was taken to this court.

In denying appellants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial, the District Judge wrote a carefully detailed and fully considered opinion, Helsby v. St. Paul Hospital & Casualty Co. et al., 1961, 195 F.Supp. 385. We believe that each of appellants' points or claimed errors which might possibly present any substance whatsoever has been meticulously covered by judge Henley in his published opinion. To restate the facts indicated by the record here, to rephrase the issues of law and rewrite Judge Henley's conclusions, with which conclusions we...