Sternberg v. First Nat Bank of Camden
| Decision Date | 26 April 1922 |
| Docket Number | 2795. |
| Citation | 280 F. 863 |
| Parties | STERNBERG v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF CAMDEN. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
B. Wm Sternberg, of Philadelphia, Pa., in pro. per.
Fell & Spalding and Henry Spalding, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant in error.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
The single question is whether the trial court erred in refusing judgment non obstante veredicto. In a review of this nature we look very carefully into the issues raised by the pleadings and the testimony submitted to the jury.
The plaintiff, by his statement of claim, averred that the defendant bank is indebted to him in the sum of $3,340 for deposits made in 1899 and ever since remaining to his credit. The defendant, by its affidavit of defense, admitted that at one time the plaintiff had a deposit account with it, but averred that in 1898 he closed the account by drawing against it for the full amount; that since that time the plaintiff has made no deposits; and that, accordingly, it owes him nothing. This sharp issue of fact raised by the pleadings was tried to a jury. Conflicting testimony in support of these opposite averments was introduced and the case submitted without exception by the plaintiff to any ruling or to the charge of the court. The verdict was for the defendant. The plaintiff moved for judgment non obstante veredicto on the contention that the evidence for the defendant was both false and insufficient. The court denied the motion and the plaintiff sued out this writ of error.
Laying aside any question of the plaintiff's right to maintain this writ, we are disposed to give consideration to the ground on which it is based, especially as the plaintiff, who appeared and tried the case in propria persona, is not trained in the law. We are constrained to believe, however, that the grievance he feels is due to a misconception of the law which he invoked.
Judgment non obstante veredicto, technically, is entered for the plaintiff, on his motion, when it appears on the record either from some matter growing out of the pleading or because the fact found by the jury is immaterial, that the defendant is not, in law, entitled to the judgment; as, for instance, where a verdict has been found for the defendant on an insufficient plea in avoidance, Jones v. Fennimore, 1 G. Greene (Iowa) 134; Dewey v. Humphrey, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 187; or where the plea...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ambrose v. Wheatley
...men might reach different conclusions from the evidence, a motion for judgment n. o.v. should be denied. Sternberg v. First National Bank of Camden, 280 F. 863, 864 (C.A. 3, 1922); Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Weisser, 180 F. 663 (C.A. 3, 1910). Compare also the reasons set forth in West v. Whe......
-
Spence v. National Life & Accident Ins. Co.
...common law a judgment non obstante veredicto was not allowed unless the facts alleged did not support the verdict. Sternberg v. First Nat. Bank of Camden (C. C. A.) 280 F. 863; City of Ft. Scott v. W. G. Eads Brokerage Co. (C. C. A.) 117 F. 51, cert. denied 187 U. S. 647, 23 S. Ct. 846, 47 ......
-
Federal Coal Co. v. Royal Bank of Canada
...8 Taunt. 413; Pim v. Grazebrook, supra; Bellows v. Shannon, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 86; Ward v. Phillips, 89 N. C. 215; Sternberg v. First National Bank, 280 F. 863 (C. C. A. 3); Stephen on Pleading, § 95 (3). Here the sixth plea is good, because it alleges that the contract between the Cuban buyer ......