Home Ins. Co. v. Tydal Co.
| Decision Date | 23 January 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 11371.,11371. |
| Citation | 157 F.2d 851 |
| Parties | HOME INS. CO. OF NEW YORK v. TYDAL CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Austin Y. Bryan, Jr., of Houston, Tex., for appellant.
O. R. Tipps, of Wichita Falls, Tex., for appellees.
Before SIBLEY, McCORD, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.
The motion for rehearing urgently insists that we are in error in saying: , and that it is our duty to scrutinize more closely the evidence and reconsider our suggestions as to how the jury might reasonably have reached the amount in the verdict they made. Because counsel so frequently call on us to review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict in a civil suit without having, by a proper motion or request to charge, caused the judge to rule upon it; and especially, as here, to declare a verdict excessive, we will call attention to the limitation imposed on federal courts in such suits by the Seventh Amendment of the federal Constitution. After preserving the right of trial by jury in suits at common law where the value in controversy exceeds $20, it adds: "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." This has always been held to prevent a federal appellate court doing what we are here urged to do. In Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448, 7 L.Ed. 732, where the trial was had in Louisiana, in which State the appellate court may freely examine and correct a jury's verdict, the Constitution was quoted as above, and it was said the only modes known to the common law to re-examine facts tried by a jury were in the grant of a new trial by the trial judge, or the award of a venire facias de novo by an appellate court for some error of law in the proceedings; and that the Louisiana appellate procedure could not obtain in the federal Supreme Court, notwithstanding a federal conformity statute. This ruling has been steadily adhered to, and was applied with reference to a claim of excessiveness in the verdict in New York Central Railroad v. Fraloff, 100 U.S. 24, 31, 25 L.Ed. 531; City of Lincoln v. Power, 151 U.S. 436, 14 S.Ct. 387, 38 L.Ed. 224; Herencia v. Guzman, 219 U.S. 44, 31 S.Ct. 135, 55 L.Ed. 81; Southern Ry-Carolina...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sunray Oil Corporation v. Allbritton
... ... 474, 55 S.Ct. 296, 79 L.Ed. 603. See also the scholarly opinions in Slocum v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 228 U.S. 364, 365, 33 S.Ct. 523, 57 L.Ed. 879. Why, then, may not an appellate federal court ... In Home Ins. Co. of New York v. Tydal Co., 5 Cir., 152 F.2d 309, 311, this court said: "The trial judge ... ...
-
Perry v. Iowa State Highway Commission
... ... ); see also interpretation under comparable federal rule on requests for instructions in Home Ins. Co. of New York v. Tydal Co., 152 F.2d 309, reh. denied 157 F.2d 851 (5th cir.); Turner ... ...
-
Wisconsin Screw Co. v. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE CO.
... ... Citizens' Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Fitchburg Fire Ins. Co., 86 Vt. 267, 84 A. 970; Voges v. Mechanics Ins. Co., 119 Neb. 553, 230 N.W. 105. It is not ... respect to admissibility of opinions of experts as to the market value of insured property see Home Ins. Co. of New York v. Tydal Co., 5 Cir., 1946, 152 F.2d 309, rehearing denied 5 Cir., 157 F.2d ... ...
-
Een v. Consolidated Freightways
...& Accident Ass\'n v. Bowman, 8 Cir., 99 F.2d 856; Emanuel v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 8 Cir., 127 F.2d 175; Home Ins. Co. of New York v. Tydal Co., 5 Cir., 157 F.2d 851. * * * * * "Speaking of the necessity of interposing a motion for a directed verdict where the sufficiency of the ev......