Patton v. Southern Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 November 1901 |
| Docket Number | 366. |
| Citation | 111 F. 712 |
| Parties | PATTON v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Theodore F. Davidson and F. A. Sondley, for plaintiff in error.
Charles Price, for defendant in error.
Before GOFF and SIMONTON, Circuit Judges, and MORRIS, District Judge.
At the November term, 1897, of this court this case was remanded to the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of North Carolina, with instructions that a new trial be granted. The facts then shown by the record are fully stated in the opinion then filed, and only such matters as are additional will be referred to now. Patton v Railway Co., 27 C.C.A. 287, 82 F. 979. The case, coming on to be further heard in said circuit court, was at the July term thereof, 1898, again submitted to a jury, when a verdict for the sum of $10,000 was returned for the plaintiff. The plaintiff below moved for judgment, but the court, declining to enter the same, ex mero motu set aside the said verdict. The plaintiff asked for permission to be heard on the matter of setting aside the verdict, but this the court declined to grant, and also refused to state the grounds on which the ruling setting aside the verdict was based. To this action of the court the plaintiff excepted. Afterwards, at the November term, 1899, the case was again tried before a jury, when, at the conclusion of the evidence, the court directed a verdict for the defendant below. To this action of the court exception was noted by the plaintiff, and bills of exception in which were incorporated the evidence and the instructions given and refused, were duly prepared and signed. Judgment was rendered for the defendant, and a writ of error was asked for and granted. The assignments of error are numerous relating chiefly to the refusal of the court below to give certain instructions as asked for by the plaintiff in error; but, from the view we take of this case, it will not be necessary to refer to many of them, for the reason that we think the court was clearly right, upon the evidence submitted to the jury, in directing a verdict for the defendant.
The error assigned relating to the setting aside of the verdict rendered at the second trial is without merit; for it is so well settled that in the courts of the United States the granting of a new trial is within the discretion of the court, and not subject to review, that it is even unnecessary to again state the point, or to cite authorities to sustain it. The fact that the court on its own motion set the verdict aside neither adds to nor detracts from the rule applicable to such matters. It is the usual and certainly the better practice for the court to give the reasons moving it to such action, but we are not able in this case to say that it is reversible error not to do so. The court below exercised the right confided to it, and, so far as this writ of error is concerned, we must presume that its discretion was used in a judicial manner. It is true that the plaintiff below excepted to such action by the court, but it is also true that the record does not contain any of the testimony submitted to and considered by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davenport v. Southern Ry. Co.
... ... verdict for plaintiff to stand? If not, then there is no ... error in directing a verdict. R.R. Co. v. Powers, ... 149 U.S. 43, 13 Sup.Ct. 748, 37 L.Ed. 642; Commissioners ... v. Clark, 94 U.S. 278, 24 L.Ed. 59; Thompson v ... Southern Ry. Co. (C. C.) 113 F. 890; Patton v ... Southern Ry., 111 F. 712, 49 C.C.A. 569; and numerous ... other authorities. This doctrine is settled ... Most of ... the reported cases refer to public crossings, or tracks used ... as a highway, but it will be noted this spur does not fall ... under either head. Trains ... ...
-
Ellerson v. Grove
...1008; Hickman v. Jones, 9 Wall. 201 19 L. Ed. 551." See also Coughran v. Bigelow, 164 U. S. 307, 17 S. Ct. 117, 41 L. Ed. 442; Patton v. Southern Ry., 111 F. 712 (4th C. C. A.); Woodward et al. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (8th C. C. A.) 145 F. In the last-mentioned case it is said that ......
-
Thomason v. Southern Ry. Co.
... ... 162, 2 ... Sup.Ct. 403, 27 L.Ed. 436; Railroad Co. v. Woodson, ... 134 U.S. 621, 10 Sup.Ct. 628, 33 L.Ed. 1033; Peoples' ... Bank of Greenville v. Aetna Ins. Co., 20 C.C.A. 630, 74 ... F. 507; Sloss Iron & Steel Co. v. South Carolina & G.R ... Co., 85 F. 138, 29 C.C.A. 50; Patton v. Railroad ... Co., 111 F. 712, at last term; Supreme Lodge v ... Beck, 181 U.S. 52, 21 Sup.Ct. 532, 45 L.Ed. 741, and ... many decisions ... In the ... case last above cited, the supreme court, quoting from ... Railroad Co. v. Powers, 149 U.S. 43, 13 Sup.Ct. 748, ... 37 L.Ed ... ...
-
McNabb v. Virginian Ry. Co.
...whom the burden of proof is imposed.' * * * "See also Coughran v. Bigelow, 164 U. S. 307, 17 S. Ct. 117, 41 L. Ed. 442; Patton v. Southern Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 111 F. 712; Woodward et al. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 145 F. 577. In the last-mentioned case it is said that it is t......