Baltimore Carolina Line v. Redman

Decision Date03 June 1935
Docket NumberNo. 178,178
Citation79 L.Ed. 1636,55 S.Ct. 890,295 U.S. 654
PartiesBALTIMORE & CAROLINA LINE, Inc., v. REDMAN
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. George Whitefield Betts, Jr., of New York City, for petitioner.

Mr. Martin A. Schenck, of New York City, for respondent.

[Argument of Counsel from page 655 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER delivered the opinion of the Court. P This was an action in a federal court in New York to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff through the defendant's negligence. The issues were tried before the court and a jury. At the conclusion of the evidence, the defendant moved for a dismissal of the complaint because the evidence was insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff, and also moved for a directed verdict in its favor on the same ground. The court reserved its decision on both motions, submitted the case to the jury subject to its opinion on the questions reserved, and received from the jury a verdict for the plaintiff. No objection was made to the reservation or this mode of proceeding. Thereafter the court held the evidence sufficient and the motions ill grounded, and accordingly entered a judgment for the plaintiff on the verdict.

The defendant appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which held the evidence insufficient and reversed the judgment with a direction for a new trial.1 The defendant urged that the direction be for a dismissal of the complaint. But the Court of Appeals ruled that under our decision in Slocum v. New York Life Insurance Company2 the direction must be for a new trial. We granted a petition by the defendant for certiorari because of the last ruling, and at the same time denied a petition by the plaintiff challenging the ruling on the insufficiency of the evidence.3

The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution prescribes:

'In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.'

The right of trial by jury thus preserved is the right which existed under the English common law when the amendment was adopted. The amendment not only preserves that right but discloses a studied purpose to protect it from indirect impairment through possible enlargements of the power of reexamination existing under the common law, and to that end declares that 'no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.'

The aim of the amendment, as this Court has held, is to preserve the substance of the common-law right of trial by jury, as distinguished from mere matters of form or procedure, and particularly to retain the common-law distinction between the province of the court and that of the jury, whereby, in the absence of express or implied consent to the contrary, issues of law are to be resolved by the court and issues of fact are to be determined by the jury under appropriate instructions by the court.4

In Slocum v. New York Life Insurance Company, a jury trial in a federal court resulted in a general verdict for the plaintiff over the defendant's request that a verdict for it be directed. Judgment was entered on the verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant obtained a review in the Court of Appeals. That court examined the evidence, concluded that it was insufficient to support the verdict, and on that basis reversed the judgment given to the plaintiff on the verdict, and directed that judgment be entered for the defendant. A writ of certiorari then brought the case here. The question presented to us was whether, in the situation disclosed, the direction for a judgment for the defendant was an infraction of the Seventh Amendment. We held it was, and that the direction should be for a new trial.

It therefore is important to have in mind the situation to which our ruling applied. In, that case the defendant's request for a directed verdict was denied without any reservation of the question of the sufficiency of the evidence or of any other matter; and the verdict for the plaintiff was taken unconditionally, and not subject to the court's opinion on the sufficiency of the evidence. A statute of the state wherein the case was tried (Act April 22, 1905, p. 286, § 1 (see 12 PS Pa. § 681) made provision for reserving questions of law arising on a request for a directed verdict, but no reservation was made. The same statute also provided that, where a request for a directed verdict was denied, the party making the request could have the evidence made part of the record, and that, where this was done, the trial court, as also the appellate court, should be under a duty 'to * * * enter such judgment as shall be warranted by the evidence.' It was in conformity with this part of the statute that the Court of Appeals directed a judgment for the defendant.

We recognized that the state statute was applicable to trials in the federal courts in so far as its application would not effect an infraction of the Seventh Amendment, but held that there had been an infraction in that case, in that under the pertinent rules of the common law the Court of Appeals could set aside the verdict for error of law, such as the trial court's ruling respecting the sufficiency of the evidence, and direct a new trial, but could not itself determine the issues of fact and direct a judgment for the defendant, for this would cut off the plaintiff's unwaived right to have the issues of fact determined by a jury.

A very different situation is disclosed in the present case. The trial court expressly reserved its ruling on the defendant's motions to dismiss and for a directed verdict, both of which were based on the asserted insufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict for the plaintiff. Whether the evidence was sufficient or otherwise was a question of law to be resolved by the court. The verdict for the plaintiff was taken pending the court's rulings on the motions and subject to those rulings. No objection was made to the reservation or this mode of proceeding, and they must be regarded as having the tacit consent of the parties. After the verdict was given, the court considered the motions pursuant to the reservation, held the evidence sufficient, and denied the motions.

The Court of Appeals held that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict for the plaintiff, that the defendant's motion for a directed verdict was accordingly well taken, and therefore that the judgment for the plaintiff should be reversed. Thus far we think its decision was right. The remaining question relates to the direction which properly should be included in the judgment of reversal.

At common law there was a well-established practice of reserving questions of law arising during trials by jury and of taking verdicts subject to the ultimate ruling on the questions reserved; and under this practice the reservation carried with it authority to make such ultimate disposition of the case as might be made essential by the ruling under the reservation, such as nonsuiting the plaintiff where he had obtained a verdict, entering a verdict or judgment for one party where the jury had given a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
217 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Wharton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 24 Septiembre 1981
    ...... proceedings." Washington-Southern Nav. Co. v. Baltimore & Philadelphia Steamboat Co., 263 U.S. 629,. 635, 44. [435 A.2d 161] . ... matters of form or procedure.." Baltimore &. Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman, 295 U.S. 654, 657, 55. S.Ct. 890, 891, 79 L.Ed. ......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Jones Laughlin Steel Corporation
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 12 Abril 1937
    ......It manufactures and distributes a widely diversified line of steel and pig iron, being the fourth largest producer of steel in the ... an interconnection with the Pennsylvania, New York Central and Baltimore & Ohio Railroad systems. It owns the Aliquippa & Southern Railroad ...296, 79 L.Ed. 603, 95 A.L.R. 1150; Baltimore & Carolina Line v. Redman, 295 U.S. 654, 657, 55 S.Ct. 890, 891, 79 L.Ed. 1636. Thus ......
  • Parklane Hosiery Company, Inc v. Shore
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 9 Enero 1979
    ......Bedford, supra, 3 Pet., at 446. Thus, in Baltimore & Carolina Line v. Redman, 295 U.S. 654, 657, 55 S.Ct. 890, 891, 79 L.Ed. ......
  • Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, In re, 79-2540
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 7 Julio 1980
    ...... under the English common law when the Amendment was adopted." Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman, 295 U.S. 654, 657, 55 S.Ct. 890, 891, 79 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Are Questions Of Fact Being Overlooked In Software Cases?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 16 Enero 2015
    ...one that must be addressed at the outset of litigation."). 9 U.S. Const. amend. VII. 10 Baltimore & Carolina Line Inc. v. Redman, 295 U.S. 654, 657 11 Markman v. Westview Instruments Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 376 (1996). 12 Id. 13 Id. at 377. 14 See id. at 377-91; Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 1......
12 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Preparing for Trial in Federal Court
    • 4 Mayo 2010
    ...696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988), Form 7-42 Ballew v. Georgia , 435 U.S. 223, 239, 245 (1978), §10.IV Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman, 295 U.S. 654, 657 (1935), §11:39 Banco Popular De Puerto Rico v. Greenblatt , 964 F.2d 1227, 1230 (1st Cir. 1992), §7:36 Banks v. Travelers Ins. Co. , 60 ......
  • THE REMAND POWER AND THE SUPREME COURT'S ROLE.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 96 No. 1, November 2020
    • 1 Noviembre 2020
    ...Pennsylvania statute violated the Seventh Amendment, but the Court later changed course. Balt. & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman, 295 U.S. 654, 661 (1935) (overruling Slocum v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 228 U.S. 364 (1913)). See generally Renee Lettow Lerner, The Failure of Originalism in Prese......
  • Final trial preparation
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Preparing for Trial in Federal Court
    • 4 Mayo 2010
    ...(as it existed in 1791) would have granted a jury trial based on the type of action at issue. Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman , 295 U.S. 654, 657 (1935) (if right to jury existed at common law, it is preserved under the Seventh Amendment). Thus, there are many types of actions ove......
  • National Security and Access, a Structural Perspective
    • United States
    • Journal of National Security Law & Policy No. 11-3, January 2021
    • 1 Enero 2021
    ...1977); see also NELSON, supra note 417, at 21 (discussing same). 420. U.S. CONST. amend VII. 421. Baltimore & Carolina Line v. Redman, 295 U.S. 654, 657 (1913). 422. See George Kaye, Petty Offenders Have No Peers!, 26 U. CHI. L. REV. 245, 275 (1959) (“The language of the Amendments of 1791 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT