Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Conger, 205.
Decision Date | 01 May 1893 |
Docket Number | 205. |
Parties | NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. CONGER. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
C. D. O'Brien, J. H. Mitchell, Jr., and Tilden R. Selmes, for plaintiff in error.
F. D. Larrabee, for defendant in error.
Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and THAYER, District Judge.
CALDWELL, Circuit Judge, (after stating the facts as above.)
It is assigned for error that the court refused, at the request of the defendant, at the close of all the evidence in the case, to return a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff's evidence, if believed, was sufficient to sustain the verdict. This is not contested, but it is said the plaintiff's witnesses were unworthy of credit, and that their testimony was disproved by the witnesses for the defendant. It was for the jury to say whether, and how far, the evidence was to be believed. If, by giving credit to the plaintiff's evidence, and discrediting the counter evidence, the plaintiff's case was made out, the court should not have withdrawn the case from the jury.
One of the grounds for a new trial was that the verdict of the jury was arrived at by adding together the several sums each juror thought the plaintiff ought to recover, and dividing the aggregate sum by 12. But the allegation was not proved, and was, indeed, disproved. It was not a quotient verdict. Moreover, the denial of a motion for a new trial cannot be assigned for error.
An interview of the plaintiff's attorney with one of the defendant's witnesses, and what he said about the interview in the course of his argument to the jury, is made a ground of exception. The episode was not noticed by the trial court. No objection was enterred, and no exception taken to anything said or done in relation to it. The matter concerned the attorney's action, and raised a question of professional ethics which had no relation to the case on trial, and cannot affect its decision in this court. If it were otherwise, and the decision of the case depended on our affirming the propriety of the attorney's action, the judgment below would have to be reversed. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Caine v. Hagenbarth
... ... etc., Ry. v. Sharp, 63 F. 533; Railroad Co. v ... Conger, 5 C. C. A. 411, 56 F. 20; Railroad Co. v ... Teeter, 63 F. 527; ... ...
-
Parrent v. Mobile & O. R. Co.
...& Bierce Mfg. Co., 142 U.S. 128; Crumpton v. United States, 138 U.S. 361; Wabash Railroad Co. v. Lewis, 48 F.2d 519; Northern Pac. Railroad Co. v. Conger, 56 F. 20; District of Columbia v. Robinson, 180 U.S. Union Pac. Railroad Co. v. James 163 U.S. 485; Engstrom v. Canadian Northern Ry. Co......
-
St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Whittle
...66 F. 35; Railroad Co. v. Teeter, 27 U.S.App. 316, 11 C.C.A. 332, and 63 F. 527; Railroad Co. v. Conger, 12 U.S.App. 240, 5 C.C.A. 411, and 56 F. 20; Railway Co. v. Sharp, 27 U.S.App. 334, 11 337, and 63 F. 532. The jury found that the railroad company was guilty of culpable negligence, and......
-
Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Sharp
... ... verdict must stand. Railroad Co. v. Conger, 5 C.C.A ... 411, 56 F. 20; Railroad Co. v. Teeter, 63 F. 527; ... ...