Delaware & H. R. Corp. v. Bonzik

Third Circuit

Delaware & H. R. Corp. v. Bonzik

95 F.2d 959, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 4259

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 22, 1938

DocketNos. 6587-6592

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 95 F.2d 959 (Delaware & H. R. Corp. v. Bonzik) 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

Delaware & H. R. Corp. v. Bonzik, 95 F.2d 959, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 4259 (3d Cir. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the court below the plaintiffs brought suit against the defendant railroad to recover damages suffered by them while riding on a freight train, through the alleged negligence of the railroad. The court refused the defendant’s request [960]*960to give binding instructions and submitted the case to the jury. It, however, failed to agree. Thereupon, defendant moved for judgment n. o. v., which the court refused and'granted a new trial. Following this the railroad took these appeals.

Without discussing the facts or indicating any opinion on the defendant’s motion, we regard the cases before us as appeals from the court’s grant of a new trial. In the absence of abuse of discretion, which cannot be contended in these cases, and regarding them as appeals from the grant of a new trial, no appeal lies, and accordingly the appeals are dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the court below the plaintiffs brought suit against the defendant railroad to recover damages suffered by them while riding on a freight train, through the alleged negligence of the railroad. The court refused the defendant’s request [960]*960to give binding instructions and submitted the case to the jury. It, however, failed to agree. Thereupon, defendant moved for judgment n. o. v., which the court refused and'granted a new trial. Following this the railroad took these appeals.

Without discussing the facts or indicating any opinion on the defendant’s motion, we regard the cases before us as appeals from the court’s grant of a new trial. In the absence of abuse of discretion, which cannot be contended in these cases, and regarding them as appeals from the grant of a new trial, no appeal lies, and accordingly the appeals are dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 F.2d 959, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 4259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delaware-h-r-corp-v-bonzik-ca3-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack