Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Sonenshine
Decision Date | 05 October 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 7084,7092.,7084 |
Citation | 226 F.2d 220 |
Parties | ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant, v. Philip SONENSHINE and Marilyn Sonenshine, Appellees. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Philip SONENSHINE and Marilyn Sonenshine, Respondents. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Robert McC. Figg, Jr., Charleston, S. C. (A. L. Hardee, Florence, S. C., James E. Leppard, Chesterfield, S. C., Douglas McKay, Columbia, S. C., and M. V. Barnhill, Jr., Wilmington, N. C., on motion), for appellant and petitioner.
James P. Mozingo, III, Darlington, S. C., Henry H. Edens, Henry Hammer, Columbia, S. C., John L. Nettles, Archie L. Chandler and B. R. Greer, Darlington, S. C., on the brief for appellees and respondents.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal in an action to recover damages on account of personal injuries. A trial was had in the court below in which the jury returned verdicts for $145,000 damages. The trial judge denied a motion by defendant for judgment non obstante veredicto and granted a motion by plaintiffs to set aside the verdicts on the ground of inadequacy and grant a new trial. From this order the defendant has brought an appeal, which plaintiffs move to dismiss on the ground that the order from which it is taken is not a final judgment. Defendant moves for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the action of the trial judge in denying the motion for judgment non obstante veredicto and setting aside the verdicts and awarding a new trial.
It is perfectly clear that no final judgment has been entered by the court below and that consequently the appeal must be dismissed. We think it equally clear that the motion to be allowed to file application for writ of certiorari must also be denied. Southern Railway Co. v. Madden, 4 Cir., 224 F.2d 320. As we said in the case cited, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Clayton v. Warlick
...order, which we thought erroneous, had been entered granting a new trial confined to the issue of damages, and in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Sonenshine, 4 Cir., 226 F.2d 220, where an interlocutory order had been entered granting plaintiff a new trial on the issue of damages in the face ......
-
Call Carl, Inc. v. BP Oil Corp.
...us for review, for such orders are interlocutory in nature and leave no final judgment from which to appeal. Atlantic Coast R. R. Co. v. Sonenshine, 226 F.2d 220 (4th Cir. 1955). after a new trial. This is an issue over which the circuits have divided at least three ways, 2 though, somewhat......
-
Tsoleas v. Hege, 7520.
...a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken. The motion to dismiss the appeal will accordingly be granted. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Sonenshine, 4 Cir., 226 F.2d 220; Ford Motor Co. v. Busam Motor Sales, 6 Cir., 185 F.2d 531; Long v. Davis, 9 Cir., 169 F.2d 982; Barbarino v. Stan......
-
Douglas v. Union Carbide Corporation
...is not a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken. Tsoleas v. Hege, 250 F.2d 127 (4th Cir., 1957); Atlantic Coast Line R. R. v. Sonenshine, 226 F.2d 220 (4th Cir., 1955); Southern Ry. Co. v. Madden, 224 F.2d 320 (4th Cir., 1955). Even though the jurisdiction of this court has not be......