Globe Liquor Co v. San Roman
Decision Date | 05 January 1948 |
Docket Number | No. 205,205 |
Citation | 332 U.S. 571,92 L.Ed. 177,68 S.Ct. 246 |
Parties | GLOBE LIQUOR CO., Inc. v. SAN ROMAN et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Benjamin W. Heineman, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Mr. Nat M. Kahn, of Chicago, Ill., for respondents.
The petitioner, Globe Liquor Company, Inc., brought this act on in Federal District Court against respondents, Frank and Dorothea San Roman, doing business under the name of International Industries. The complaint claimed damages for an alleged breach of warranty in the sale of certain liquors. An answer was filed; issues were appropriately joined. After all the evidence had been introduced, each party requested a directed verdict. The petitioner's motion was granted, verdict was returned in its favor, and judgment was accordingly entered. The respondents then moved for a new trial on the ground among others that there were many contested issues of fact which should have been submitted to the jury. They did not move for judgment under Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, which provides in part: On appeal the Circuit Court of Appeals not only set aside the judgment in favor of the petitioner but also remanded the case to the District Court with directions to enter judgment for the respondent. 7 Cir., 160 F.2d 800. We granted certiorari, 332 U.S. 756, 68 S.Ct. 74, to consider the apparent inconsistency between this latter action of the Circuit Court of Appeals and our holding in Cone v. West Virginia Pulp and Paper Co., 330 U.S. 212, 67 S.Ct. 752, 755.
In the Cone case we held that the Circuit Court of Appeals was without power to order the entry of final judg- ment for the loser of a jury verdict in the District Court where he had failed to follow his motion for directed verdict with a timely motion for judgment as required by Rule 50(b). We pointed out in the Cone case that Rule 50(b) vested district judges with a discretion, under the circumstances outlined in the rule, to choose between two alternatives: (1) reopening the judgment and granting a new trial, and (2) ordering the entry of judgment as if the losing party's request for directed verdict had been granted by the trial judge.
It is urged that the reasons which supported the Cone decision are not relevant here because, unlike the Cone case, the jury in this case returned its verdict under specific directions of the trial judge. However significant this variance between the two cases might be for some purposes, it is of no importance here. By its terms the rule applies equally to cases where the verdict returned by the jury was not directed, as in the Cone case, or was directed, as in this case.
Furthermore, the very...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Clark v. Coleman
...in the first instance of the judge who saw and heard the witnesses and has the feel of the case." Globe Liquor Co. v. San Roman 332 U.S. 571, 572, 68 S.Ct. 246, 92 L.Ed. 177 (1948). As the court has heard from all witnesses and reviewed all evidence, it is fit to make a determination as to ......
-
Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative
...S.Ct. 754, 93 L.Ed. 971; Weade v. Dichmann, Wright & Pugh, Inc., 337 U.S. 801, 69 S.Ct. 1326, 93 L.Ed. 1704; Globe Liquor Co. v. Sam Roman, 332 U.S. 571, 68 S.Ct. 246, 92 L.Ed. 177; Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 330 U.S. 212, 67 S.Ct. 752, 91 L.Ed. A question is also presented as ......
-
Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp.
...power to direct the District Court to enter judgment contrary to the one it had permitted to stand.”); Globe Liquor Co. v. San Roman, 332 U.S. 571, 68 S.Ct. 246, 92 L.Ed. 177 (1948) (holding that a party's failure to file a Rule 50(b) motion deprives the appellate court of the power to orde......
- Doe v. McMillan
-
Tipping the ole tipsy coachman over in his grave: an inequity of appellate review.
...United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1886)). Cone v. West Va. Pulp & Paper Co., 330 U.S. 212, 217-218 (1947); Globe Liquor Co. v. Roman, 332 U.S. 571, 573-574 (1948) (citing (69) Infra note 38, 41, 52, 53. (70) State v. Robinson, 873 So. 2d 1205, 1219 (Fla. 2004) (Wells, J., dissenting); S......
-
Civil procedure - sufficiency of evidence not reviewable in absence of post-verdict judgment as a matter of law or new trial motion - Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc.
...years ago known as "The Trilogy"--Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 330 U.S. 212 (1947), Globe Liquor Co. v. San Roman, 332 U.S. 571 (1948), and Johnson v. New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad Co., 344 U.S. 48 (1952)--for the basis of its reasoning. See Biodex Corp. v. Lored......
-
Federal Rule 50: Medium Rare Application? Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-eckrich, Inc - Leslie Eanes
...U.S. 212 (1947). 26. Id. at 217-18. 27. Id. at 213-14. 28. Id. at 214. 29. Id. 30. Id. at 215, 218. 31. Id. at 215-16. 32. Id. at 216. 33. 332 U.S. 571 (1948). 34. Id. at 572. 35. Id. 36. Id. at 573. 37. Id. at 574. 38. 344 U.S. 48 (1952). 39. Id. at 50. 40. Id. at 49. 41. Id. at 49-50. 42.......
-
28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 50 Judgment As a Matter of Law In a Jury Trial; Related Motion For a New Trial; Conditional Ruling
...Pulp & Paper Co., 330 U.S. 212, 67 S.Ct. 752, 91 L.Ed. 849 (1947); Globe Liquor Co., Inc. v. San Roman, 332 U.S. 571, 68 S.Ct. 246, 92 L.Ed. 177 (1948); Fountain v. Filson, 336 U.S. 681, 69 S.Ct. 754, 93 L.Ed. 971 (1949); Johnson v. New York, N.H. & H.R.R. Co., 344 U.S. 48, 73 S.Ct. 125, 97......