Pugh v. Bluff City Excursion Co.
| Decision Date | 08 March 1910 |
| Docket Number | 1,988. |
| Citation | 177 F. 399 |
| Parties | PUGH v. BLUFF CITY EXCURSION CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
G. T Fitzhugh, for plaintiff in error.
H. C Warinner, for defendant in error.
Before SEVERENS, WARRINGTON, and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff, who is a widow, brought suit against the defendant to recover damages for causing the death of her son by negligence in the management of a vessel on which he was a passenger. Such an action is given by a statute of the state in which the occurrence happened. On the trial it was testified that the son at the time of his death was 29 years old and in good health; that he was capable of earning, and at the time of his death had been earning, $20 a week; that she was almost entirely dependent upon her son and a daughter who contributed to her support. These facts were not seriously disputed. After being out for some time to consider their verdict, the jury came into court and reported a disagreement and asked if they might find a verdict for nominal damages, to which the court replied that they were authorized to find a verdict for such damages as under all the evidence and the charge previously given they thought the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The jury returned this verdict:
'We the jury, find a verdict for the plaintiff and fix the damages at one dollar.' The plaintiff moved for a new trial upon grounds, one of which was that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. The motion was overruled, and the plaintiff excepted. One of the errors assigned is the same as the one assigned as a ground for a new trial.
The charge of the court previous to the retiring of the jury was unexceptionable, and the answer given to the inquiry made by the jury was correct in point of law; but the court should have gone further and prevented the jury from doing what they seemed to be contemplating. It is the general rule that the granting of a new trial is a matter of discretion, and will not be reviewed. But it is not so where the verdict is inconsistent on its face and shows the abuse of power on the part of the jury. If the granting of the motion is a positive duty, it is not discretionary. If it is necessary to correct a mistrial, it becomes a positive duty to set aside the erroneous proceeding and grant a new trial. And such, we think, was the case here. The jury found the plaintiff was entitled to recover. And if s...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co
...and exact. The question is not before us whether even in such circumstances there may be revision on appeal. Cf. Pugh v. Bluff City Excursion Co. (C.C.A.) 177 F. 399. Enough for present purposes that in the circumstances of the case at hand the verdict for $1 is a finding that the contract ......
-
Booren v. McWilliams
... ... Courtney, 75 Minn. 255, 77 N.W. 813; Messenger v ... St. Paul City R. Co. 77 Minn. 34, 79 N.W. 583; ... Harvey v. Atlantic Coast Line R ... 673; Root v ... Bingham, 26 S.D. 118, 128 N.W. 132; Pugh v. Bluff ... City Excursion Co. 101 C. C. A. 403, 177 F. 399; Galvin ... ...
-
Devine v. Patteson
...the jury had failed to abide by the instruction of the court. The Reisberg decision reaffirmed the doctrine of Pugh v. Bluff City Excursion Company, 6 Cir., 177 F. 399, 401, which held that in case of inadequacy of verdict such as here presented it was error of law to overrule a motion for ......
-
Morton Butler Timber Co. v. United States
...it appears that the refusal of the trial judge to grant the motion for a new trial was a plain abuse of his discretion. Pugh v. Bluff City Excursion Co., 177 F. 399, 401 (C.C. Despite their contention, the last-cited decision of this court does not support the position of appellants. The ca......