Lawton v. Carpenter
Decision Date | 15 February 1912 |
Docket Number | 1,047. |
Citation | 195 F. 362 |
Parties | LAWTON v. CARPENTER et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Joseph A. McCullough (Garrard & Gazan and McCullough & Blythe, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Joseph E. Johnson and J. W. Vincent (Johnson & Johnson, on the brief), for defendants in error.
Before PRITCHARD, Circuit Judge, and McDOWELL and CONNOR, District judges.
PRITCHARD Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
For the purpose of convenience the plaintiff in error will hereafter be referred to as the defendant, and the defendant in error as the plaintiff; that being the relative positions of the parties in the court below.
There are a number of assignments of error, but it is insisted by the plaintiff that, inasmuch as both parties made motions for the direction of a verdict, they thereby submitted all questions of law and fact to the court, and, having directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, the court is presumed to have found all facts necessary to a judgment for them. This question has been passed upon by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Beuttell v. Magone, 157 U.S. 154, 15 Sup.Ct. 566, 39 L.Ed. 654. In that case, Mr Justice White, who , in discussing this question, said:
The same question was also passed upon by this court in the case of Charlotte National Bank of Charlotte v. Southern Railway Company, 179 F. 769, 103 C.C.A. 261. Judge Goff, speaking for the court in this case, said:
* * * '
In that case it appears that the plaintiff as well as the defendant, at the close of the testimony, requested the court to give peremptory instructions in their favor. However, both plaintiff and defendant at the same time requested that the court give special instructions in the event the peremptory instructions were denied. Many of these instructions related to conflicting evidence, and it was obvious that more than one inference could be drawn from the same. The request for special instructions, and, in addition thereto, peremptory instructions, clearly distinguishes that case from the case of Beuttell v. Magone, supra.
The decision in the case of the Charlotte National Bank of Charlotte v. Southern Railway Company, supra, is in harmony with the case of Empire State Cattle Company v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, 210 U.S. 1, 28 Sup.Ct. 607, 52 L.Ed. 931, 15 Ann.Cas. 70, in which the court, among other things, said:
' * * * It was settled in Beuttell v. Magone, supra, that, where both parties request peremptory instructions and do nothing more, they thereby assume the facts to be undisputed, and in effect submit to the trial judge the determination of the inferences proper to be drawn from the same. But nothing in that ruling sustains the view that a party may not request a peremptory instruction, and yet, upon the refusal of the court to give it insist, by appropriate requests, upon the submission of the case to the jury, where the evidence is conflicting or the inferences to be drawn from the testimony are divergent. To hold the contrary would unduly extend the doctrine of Beuttell v. Magone, by causing it to embrace a case not within the ruling of that case made. The distinction between a case like the one before us and that which was under consideration in Beuttell v. Magone has been pointed out in several recent decisions of Circuit Courts of Appeals. It was accurately noted in an opinion delivered by Circuit Judge Severens, speaking for the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Minahan v. Grand Trunk Railway Company, 138 F. 37, 41 (70 C.C.A. 463), and was also lucidly stated in the concurring opinion of Shelby, Circuit Judge, in McCormick v. National City Bank of Waco, 142 F. 132 (73 C.C.A. 350, 6 Ann.Cas. 544). * * * '
These cases, however, are not analogous to the case at bar. There the parties requested the court to submit certain instructions to the jury in addition to the peremptory instructions. In this case counsel for the plaintiffs moved for judgment upon the facts, and a similar motion was made by counsel for the defendant. It was evidently the intention of counsel for both parties to have the court pass upon the facts of the case, and consequently all facts were submitted to the court, which clearly brings it within the rule announced in the case of Beuttell v. Magone, supra. If the doctrine in Beuttell v. Magone rested on that case alone, we might well restrict the doctrine to cases in which there is no conflict of evidence. But Sena v. American Co., 220 U.S. 497, 501, 31 Sup.Ct. 488, 55 L.Ed. 559, is a case in which the doctrine of Beuttell v. Magone was held applicable, and in that case there was conflicting testimony on an important point in the case-- the location of plaintiff's southern boundary. 'The southern boundary of Leyba depended on contradictory testimony as to the existence of an arroyo of the Cuesta del Oregans in the neighborhood, and was thought by the trial judge not to be made out.' 220 U.S. 500, 31 Sup.Ct. 490, 55 L.Ed. 559.
At the close of the evidence we find the following statements appearing in the record:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Coleman Furniture Corporation v. Home Ins. Co.
...words, unless we think that upon the evidence a verdict should have been directed for the defendant as a matter of law. Lawton v. Carpenter (C. C. A. 4th) 195 F. 362; Sena v. American Turquoise Co., 220 U. S. 497, 501, 31 S. Ct. 488, 55 L. Ed. 559; Beuttell v. Magone, 157 U. S. 154, 15 S. C......
-
Chisholm v. Gilmer
...(C.C.A.4th) 61 F.(2d) 82, 83; Swift & Co. v. Columbia Ry., Gas & Electric Co. (C.C.A.4th) 17 F.(2d) 46, 49, 51 A.L.R. 983; Lawton v. Carpenter (C.C.A.4th) 195 F. 362. The only question left for our determination, therefore, is whether, upon the evidence, defendants were entitled to a direct......
-
Swift & Co. v. Columbia Ry., Gas & Electric Co.
...words, unless we think that upon the evidence a verdict should have been directed for the defendant as a matter of law. Lawton v. Carpenter (C. C. A. 4th) 195 F. 362; Sena v. American Turquoise Co., 220 U. S. 497, 501, 31 S. Ct. 488, 55 L. Ed. 559; Beuttell v. Magone, 157 U. S. 154, 15 S. C......
-
Crescent Mfg. Co. v. Patterson Mfg. Co.
... ... Magone, 157 U.S. 154, 15 Sup.Ct. 566, 39 L.Ed. 654, ... Sena v. American Co., 220 U.S. 497, 501, 31 Sup.Ct ... 488, 55 L.Ed. 559, and Lawton v. Carpenter, 195 F ... 362, 115 C.C.A ... , decided by this court at this term, ... we are of opinion that the decision of the lower court ... ...