Priester v. Southern Ry. Co.

Fourth Circuit

Priester v. Southern Ry. Co.

6 F.2d 878, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2168

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 15, 1925

DocketNo. 2344

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 6 F.2d 878 (Priester v. Southern Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Priester v. Southern Ry. Co., 6 F.2d 878, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2168 (4th Cir. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

ROSE, Circuit Judge.

This case has been here before. 289 F. 945. At that time, after full consideration, a judgment below for the plaintiffs was reversed, on the ground that they had offered no evidence legally sufficient to support a verdict in their favor. The ease was then remanded for a new trial. That has been now held, and under the direction of the learned District Judge a verdict was returned for the defendant. The- plaintiffs assign error.

It goes without saying that, if the testimony offered at the second trial did not differ in any material respect from that which was presented when the ease was first heard, the District Court had no choice other than to give the direction it did. Thompson v. [879]*879Maxwell Land Grant & R. Co., 168 U. S. 456, 18 S. Ct. 121, 42 L. Ed. 539. We have carefully examined the present record, and fail to find any substantial distinction between the evidence in it and that which we considered some two years ago.

Affirmed.

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

ROSE, Circuit Judge.

This case has been here before. 289 F. 945. At that time, after full consideration, a judgment below for the plaintiffs was reversed, on the ground that they had offered no evidence legally sufficient to support a verdict in their favor. The ease was then remanded for a new trial. That has been now held, and under the direction of the learned District Judge a verdict was returned for the defendant. The- plaintiffs assign error.

It goes without saying that, if the testimony offered at the second trial did not differ in any material respect from that which was presented when the ease was first heard, the District Court had no choice other than to give the direction it did. Thompson v. [879]*879Maxwell Land Grant & R. Co., 168 U. S. 456, 18 S. Ct. 121, 42 L. Ed. 539. We have carefully examined the present record, and fail to find any substantial distinction between the evidence in it and that which we considered some two years ago.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 F.2d 878, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/priester-v-southern-ry-co-ca4-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack