Firemen's Fund Ins. v. Hoffman

E.D. Pennsylvania

Firemen's Fund Ins. v. Hoffman

123 F. 408, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4912

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 11, 1903

DocketNo. 59

StatusPublished

This text of 123 F. 408 (Firemen's Fund Ins. v. Hoffman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Firemen's Fund Ins. v. Hoffman, 123 F. 408, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4912 (E.D. Pa. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

In spite of the earnest and capable argument on behalf of the plaintiff, I am still of opinion that the supplemental charge did not go beyond the limits set by the federal courts to the right of a trial judge to express his opinion on the facts to the jury. When I sent for the jury, it was evident that another disagreement was impending, and I was naturally desirous to bring a prolonged litigation to what I regard as the proper end. I refrained from expressing my opinion in the principal charge, but when it became likely that a third long trial would be the outcome I felt justified in telling the jury what I thought about the evidence. The authorities cited on the brief of defendant's counsel seem to me to support his contention that the supplemental charge did not go too far.

A new trial is refused.

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

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

In spite of the earnest and capable argument on behalf of the plaintiff, I am still of opinion that the supplemental charge did not go beyond the limits set by the federal courts to the right of a trial judge to express his opinion on the facts to the jury. When I sent for the jury, it was evident that another disagreement was impending, and I was naturally desirous to bring a prolonged litigation to what I regard as the proper end. I refrained from expressing my opinion in the principal charge, but when it became likely that a third long trial would be the outcome I felt justified in telling the jury what I thought about the evidence. The authorities cited on the brief of defendant's counsel seem to me to support his contention that the supplemental charge did not go too far.

A new trial is refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 F. 408, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/firemens-fund-ins-v-hoffman-paed-1903.