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

332 U.S. 571

68 S.Ct. 246

92 L.Ed. 177

GLOBE LIQUOR CO., Inc.

v SAN ROMAN et al.

No. 205.

Argued Dec. 17, 1947.

Decided Jan. 5, 1948.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 2, 1948.

Mr. Benjamin W. Heineman, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.

Mr. Nat M. Kahn, of Chicago, Ill., for respondents.

Mr. Justice BLACKdelivered the opinion of the Court.

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.followingsection 723c, which provides in part: 'Within 10 days after the reception of a verdict, a party who has moved for a directed verdict may move to have the verdict and any judgment entered thereon set aside and to have judgment entered in accordance with his motion for a directed verdict * * *.A motion for a new trial may be joined with this motion, or a new trial may be prayed for in the alternative.If a verdict was returned the court may allow the judgment to stand or may reopen the judgment and either order a new trial or direct the entry of judgment as if the requested verdict had been directed.'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 casewe 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 circumstances which arose in this case emphasize the importance of having ...