Brown Sheet Iron & Steel Co. v. Maple Leaf Oil & R. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 March 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 9753.,9753. |
| Citation | 68 F.2d 787 |
| Parties | BROWN SHEET IRON & STEEL CO. v. MAPLE LEAF OIL & REFINING CO., LIMITED. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
H. V. Mercer, of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.
Chester W. Johnson, of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.
Before GARDNER, WOODROUGH, and BOOTH, Circuit Judges.
Appellee as plaintiff below brought this action for damages for breach of warranties alleged to have been made by appellant in connection with the sale by it of a certain steel and iron storage tank. The action was tried to a jury and resulted in a verdict in favor of appellee in the sum of $15,000, and from the judgment entered thereon defendant has appealed.
The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the lower court.
Various errors are assigned which may be summarized as follows: (1) The court erred in overruling defendant's demurrer to the complaint; (2) the court erred in refusing to require the plaintiff to make its complaint more definite and certain, or to strike out the complaint; (3) the court erred in entering judgment in favor of the plaintiff for damages on the complaint; (4) the court erred in refusing to sustain defendant's motion to arrest the judgment; (5) the court erred in submitting said cause to a jury under the pleadings; and (6) the court erred in refusing to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
The assignments thus summarized are elaborated more or less, but in the view we take of the issues as presented by the record, further details of the assignments are not material.
A demurrer was filed to the original complaint, and this was sustained with leave to the plaintiff, however, to amend. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, to which defendant again demurred, which demurrer the court overruled, allowing the defendant time within which to file an answer. Defendant then filed a motion to strike the amended complaint, or, in the alternative, to make it more definite and certain. The court entered its order requiring certain portions of the complaint to be made more definite and certain, granting plaintiff time within which to comply with the order granting defendant time within which to file answer, and denying the motion in so far as it asked to strike the complaint. Plaintiff then filed its second amended complaint. To this complaint defendant interposed neither demurrer nor motion, but filed its answer. Plaintiff then filed reply to the affirmative allegations of the answer, and thereafter the cause was tried upon its merits.
The record contains no bill of exceptions, and hence, there is not presented for review any alleged errors at law occurring during the trial of the action; nor may we review the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment.
There were, as has been noted, certain demurrers and motions interposed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Atlanta Metallic Casket Co.
...case, supra, 344 U.S. 924, 73 S.Ct. 390. 5 Citing Clearwater v. Meredith, 1 Wall. 25, 17 L.Ed. 604; Brown Sheet Iron & Steel Co. v. Maple Leaf Oil & R. Co., 8 Cir., 68 F.2d 787, 788; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 10 Cir., 69 F.2d 901, 903; Grubbs v. Smith, 6 Cir., 86 F.2d 275, certiorari......
-
American Ins. Co. v. Scheufler
...these points. Points 9, 10 and 11 are therefore abandoned and will be given no further consideration. Brown Sheet Iron & Steel Co. v. Maple Leaf Oil & Refining Co., 8 Cir., 68 F.2d 787. Appellees have with their brief filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with the rules......
-
Manning v. Hobbs
...In answer to the Amended Petition, Respondent makes no mention of the Motion to Dismiss. See Brown Sheet Iron & Steel Co. v. Maple LeafOil & Refining Co., 68 F.2d 787, 788 (8th Cir. 1934) (noting the Court need not "give attention to the previous pleadings," as they were "superceded by the ......
-
United States v. Kane
...in accord herewith. Reversed with direction. 1 Bedell v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., D. C., 245 F. 788; Brown Sheet Iron & Metal Co. v. Maple Leaf Oil & Refining Co. Ltd., 8 Cir., 68 F.2d 787; Grubbs v. Smith, 6 Cir., 86 F.2d 275; United States v. Gentry, 8 Cir., 119 F. 70; General Orders in B......