Maryland Casualty Co. v. Dixie Pine Products Co.

Fifth Circuit

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Dixie Pine Products Co.

145 F.2d 977, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2720

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 27, 1944

DocketNo. 11013

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 145 F.2d 977 (Maryland Casualty Co. v. Dixie Pine Products Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Dixie Pine Products Co., 145 F.2d 977, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2720 (5th Cir. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict awarding damages [978]*978against the appellant in a suit under an insurance policy issued by it.

This is the second appearance of this case here. ' In our former opinion, 133 F.2d 583, we held that the evidence adduced upon the first trial made out a case for determination by the jury. *A careful examination of all the evidence at the second trial discloses that the proof upon the issue of liability is substantially identical with that on the prior trial, except that appellee bolstered its case by a further showing that it was not negligent in failing to prevent the explosive vapors from reaching the boilers. Therefore we hold, for the reasons assigned in the former opinion, that the respective motions of the appellant for a directed verdict were properly overruled.

The record further discloses that there was substantial evidence to justify the damages found by the jury, and the procedural errors assigned are without merit.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict awarding damages [978]*978against the appellant in a suit under an insurance policy issued by it.

This is the second appearance of this case here. ' In our former opinion, 133 F.2d 583, we held that the evidence adduced upon the first trial made out a case for determination by the jury. *A careful examination of all the evidence at the second trial discloses that the proof upon the issue of liability is substantially identical with that on the prior trial, except that appellee bolstered its case by a further showing that it was not negligent in failing to prevent the explosive vapors from reaching the boilers. Therefore we hold, for the reasons assigned in the former opinion, that the respective motions of the appellant for a directed verdict were properly overruled.

The record further discloses that there was substantial evidence to justify the damages found by the jury, and the procedural errors assigned are without merit.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 F.2d 977, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maryland-casualty-co-v-dixie-pine-products-co-ca5-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack