Casey v. Pennsylvania Asphalt Pav. Co.

Third Circuit

Casey v. Pennsylvania Asphalt Pav. Co.

114 F. 189, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4084

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 12, 1902

DocketNo. 45

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 114 F. 189 (Casey v. Pennsylvania Asphalt Pav. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Casey v. Pennsylvania Asphalt Pav. Co., 114 F. 189, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4084 (3d Cir. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

The very ingenious argument made on behalf of the plaintiff in error ascribes to a judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto a character quite different, we think, from that which has heretofore been attributed to it. It is not, either in form or effect, an adjudication against the plaintiff upon matter alleged in arrest of judgment, but is merely the legal consequence of a ruling by the court that, upon all the evidence, the defendant was entitled to a verdict. Such a ruling, when, made upon the trial, is given effect through binding instructions, and between a judgment for defendant in pursuance of a directed verdict, and a judgment entered in his favor notwithstanding a verdict which had been taken for the plaintiff subject to a point reserved, there is no substantial distinction. They rest upon precisely the same foundation.

We adopt the opinion which was filed by the learned judge of the circuit court (109 Fed. 744), and for the reasons there presented the judgment of that court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

The very ingenious argument made on behalf of the plaintiff in error ascribes to a judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto a character quite different, we think, from that which has heretofore been attributed to it. It is not, either in form or effect, an adjudication against the plaintiff upon matter alleged in arrest of judgment, but is merely the legal consequence of a ruling by the court that, upon all the evidence, the defendant was entitled to a verdict. Such a ruling, when, made upon the trial, is given effect through binding instructions, and between a judgment for defendant in pursuance of a directed verdict, and a judgment entered in his favor notwithstanding a verdict which had been taken for the plaintiff subject to a point reserved, there is no substantial distinction. They rest upon precisely the same foundation.

We adopt the opinion which was filed by the learned judge of the circuit court (109 Fed. 744), and for the reasons there presented the judgment of that court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 F. 189, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casey-v-pennsylvania-asphalt-pav-co-ca3-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack