Clark v. Jenkins

• Decision Date: 28 November 1894
• Citation: 162 Mass. 397,38 N.E. 974
• Parties: CLARK v. JENKINS et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

162 Mass. 397

38 N.E. 974

CLARK v. JENKINS et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Plymouth.

November 28, 1894

COUNSEL

Cook &

Coughlan, for plaintiff.

Arthur Lord, for defendants.

OPINION

ALLEN J.

The cases cited for the plaintiff show that it is sometimes said to be the duty of the court to direct the jury to return a verdict for the defendant in cases where the whole evidence is insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff. The rule as declared by the supreme court of the United States is that in such a case "the court is not bound to submit the case to the jury, but may direct a verdict for the defendant." Randall v. Railroad Co., 109 U.S 478, 3 Sup.Ct. 322; Schofield v. Railway Co., 114 U.S. 615, 5 Sup.Ct. 1125. In the present case the court may have thought it expedient to leave the case to the jury without such direction, in the expectation that they would find for the defendants, and thus save any further question; or for the moment it may have seemed doubtful whether there was not some slight evidence entitling the plaintiff to go to the jury. However this may have been, the plaintiff has not referred us to any case where it has been held that the omission to give such direction on motion of the defendants will debar the court from afterwards setting aside a verdict for the plaintiff, as against the evidence. No such limitation of authority is found in Pub.St. c. 153, § 6, providing that "the courts may at any time before judgment in a civil action set aside the verdict, and order a new trial for any cause, for which a new trial may by law be granted." We have no doubt of the legal authority of the court to set aside the verdict, although the defendants' motion to direct the jury to find a verdict for the defendants had been denied. In this commonwealth there is no rule of law limiting the number of times that a judge may set aside a verdict as against the evidence. On the other hand it has been recognized that in an extraordinary case the court might set aside any number of verdicts that might be returned. Coffin v. Insurance Co., 15 Pick. 291 295; Denny v. Williams, 5 Allen, 1, 5; Brooks v. Somerville, 106 Mass. 271, 275. See, also, Davies v. Roper, 2 Jur. (N.S.) 167; State v. Horner, 86 Mo. 71; Wolbrecht Baumgarten, 26 Ill. 291. The fact that three successive verdicts for the plaintiff have been returned does not of itself make it the legal duty of the court to...