Lawson v. Producers' & Refiners' Corporation
| Citation | 9 S.W.2d 1026 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Tennessee |
| Decision Date | 13 October 1928 |
| Parties | LAWSON v. PRODUCERS' & REFINERS' CORPORATION OF TENNESSEE. |
Page 1026
v.
PRODUCERS' & REFINERS' CORPORATION OF TENNESSEE.
Error to Circuit Court, Hamilton County; Oscar Yarnell, Judge.
Action by Beecher Lawson against the Producers' & Refiners' Corporation of Tennessee. Plaintiff recovered judgment in justice court, and on appeal judgment was rendered in circuit court for defendant, which judgment was affirmed by Court of Appeals, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded to circuit court for new trial.
Cantrell, Meacham & Moon, of Chattanooga, for plaintiff in error.
Sizer, Chambliss & Sizer, of Chattanooga, for defendant in error.
McKINNEY, J.
Lawson sued the defendant corporation before a justice of the peace to recover $500, damages to his automobile truck caused by the alleged negligence of the driver of defendant's truck in running same into his truck. The justice of the peace entered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $500, and defendant appealed to the circuit court, where a jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $500.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's proof, counsel for defendant moved for a directed verdict in this language:
"If your honor please, I think on the plaintiff's own statement we are entitled to a directed verdict on the ground that he ran into the side of the truck."
This motion was overruled and defendant excepted.
At the conclusion of all the evidence, counsel for defendant stated:
"I want to renew my motion for a directed verdict."
This motion was likewise overruled and an exception taken.
Later a motion for a new trial was filed and argued before the court, one of the grounds thereof being in this language:
"Because there is no evidence to connect the defendant, Producers' & Refiners' Corporation, with the ownership or the operation of the truck involved in the accident out of which this case arises."
The trial court granted a new trial upon said ground, the order reciting:
"It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the verdict of the jury and the judgment entered thereon be and the same hereby are set aside, and the defendant is granted a new trial upon the ground stated, and the court here and now orders a verdict directed in favor of the defendant upon this said ground."
Thereupon plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and an appeal prayed and granted to the Court of Appeals, where the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.
Plaintiff testified as follows:
"Q. I will ask you if you were coming with a load of milk on the truck to Chattanooga, some time last September, when you had an accident with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merritt v. Grant
...alone. The issue concerning gross contributory negligence, therefore, is not properly before us. Lawson v. Producers' and Refiners' Corp. of Tenn., 157 Tenn. 455, 9 S.W.2d 1026 (1928); 75 Am.Jur.2d Trial Section 470 at 488-89 (1974); see Jensvold v. Chicago, Great Western R. Co., 236 Iowa 7......
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Ansley
...proper showing, to introduce testimony to" supply the deficiency in the evidence pointed out by the motion. Lawson v. Producers' & Refiners' Corp., 157 Tenn. 455, 9 S.W.2d 1026, 1027. The rule being bottomed upon this reason, obviously the spirit of its requirements could not be met by inco......
-
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America v. Richardson
...be confined to the grounds thus specified." Tennessee Cent. Railway Co. v. Zearing, 2 Tenn.App. 451, 455; Lawson v. Producers' & Refiners' Corp., 157 Tenn. 455, 459, 9 S.W.2d 1026; Ballow v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co., 12 Tenn.App. 348, The defendant's motion for peremptory instructions in ......
-
Friedman v. Georgia Showcase Co., 2.
...grounds assigned in the motion and such additional grounds as the court may have added upon his own motion. Lawson v. Producers & Refiners Corp., 157 Tenn. 455, 459, 9 S.W.2d 1026; Tennessee Central Ry. Co. v. Zearing, 2 Tenn.App. 451; Ballow v. Postal Telegraph & Cable Co., 12 Tenn.App. 34......