Glenwood Irr. Co. v. Vallery
| Decision Date | 26 January 1918 |
| Docket Number | 4834.,4833 |
| Citation | 248 F. 483 |
| Parties | GLENWOOD IRR. CO. v. VALLERY. VALLERY v. GLENWOOD IRR. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
E. L Clover, of Denver, Colo., for plaintiff in error in No. 4833.
Henry T. Rogers, Daniel B. Ellis, Lewis B. Johnson, Pierpont Fuller, and George A. H. Fraser, all of Denver, Colo., for defendant in error in No. 4833 and plaintiff in error in No 4834.
Before CARLAND, Circuit Judge, and AMIDON and MUNGER, District Judges.
Vallery as receiver of the Colorado Midland Railway Company, brought an action, as plaintiff, against the Glenwood Irrigation Company, as defendant, to recover damages for a trestle destroyed by fire alleged to have been set by defendant. The value of the bridge and the expense caused by its destruction was fixed by the evidence at $1,973.89. As to this amount there was no controversy. The trial judge in his charge told the jury in substance that, if they found in favor of the plaintiff, he was entitled to recover that amount. It was developed in the evidence that the railroad company carried insurance upon its trestle, for which it had collected $1,200; but the judge in his charge told the jury expressly that no deduction could be made from their verdict on account of the insurance. The jury, in disregard of the charge returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $760.03. It is reasonably clear that they arrived at this amount by deducting the $1,200 from the amount of plaintiff's damages. Both parties immediately excepted to the verdict, and both parties have sued out writs of error to review the judgment entered upon it. Plaintiff asks that it be set aside because, as a mathematical demonstration, it was contrary to law as declared to the jury by the court; the defendant, for errors of law occurring at the trial.
No issue was submitted to the jury as to the amount of plaintiff's recovery. They were confined by the charge to determining defendant's liability for the fire. It is manifest, therefore, that the amount of the damages was not 'a fact tried by the jury,' within the meaning of the Seventh Amendment to the federal Constitution. The verdict is perverse and directly violative of the charge of the court. When that appears as a matter of mathematical calculation the verdict cannot stand. It is error of law to enter judgment upon it, which an appellate court may properly review. The verdict stands in this case as it would in a suit on a promissory note for $2,000, upon which no payment had been made, and the jury returned a verdict...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dimick v. Schiedt
...See, for example, Carter v. Wells, Fargo & Co. (C.C.) 64 F. 1005; Usher v. Scranton Ry. Co. (C.C.) 132 F. 405; Glenwood Irr. Co. v. Vallery (C.C.A.) 248 F. 483; United Press Ass'ns v. National Newspapers Ass'n (C.C.A.) 254 F. 284; Stetson v. Stindt et al. (C.C.A.) 279 F. 209. This, it is tr......
-
Ira S. Bushey & Sons v. WE Hedger Transp. Corp.
...States, 3 Cir., 112 F. 523; United Press Associations v. National Newspapers Association, 8 Cir., 254 F. 284, 285; Glenwood Irr. Co. v. Vallery, 8 Cir., 248 F. 483, 485; cf. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243, 254, 61 S.Ct. 189, 85 L.Ed. 147; Cone v. West Virginia Paper Co., 330 ......
-
Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co
...Ry., Carolina Division v. Bennett, 233 U.S. 80, 34 S.Ct. 566, 58 L.Ed. 860; or was less than an amount undisputed, Glenwood Irrig. Co. v. Vallery (C.C.A.) 248 F. 483; Stetson v. Stindt (C.C.A.) 279 F. 209, 23 A.L.R. 302; or was in pursuance of erroneous instructions on the measure of damage......
-
Morton Butler Timber Co. v. United States
...abused his discretion in refusing a new trial. United Press Ass'ns v. Nat'l Newspapers Ass'n, 254 F. 284 (C.C.A.8); Glenwood Irrigation Co. v. Vallery, 248 F. 483 (C.C.A.8). Nor is Cobb v. Lepisto, 6 F. (2d) 128 (C.C.A.9), in point in behalf of appellants, because there the personal service......