Streitweiser v. Lightbourn

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Streitweiser v. Lightbourn

89 A. 186, 87 Conn. 527, 1913 Conn. LEXIS 135

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedDecember 20, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 A. 186 (Streitweiser v. Lightbourn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Streitweiser v. Lightbourn, 89 A. 186, 87 Conn. 527, 1913 Conn. LEXIS 135 (Colo. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The evidence in this ease is such that the issues as to the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s lack of contributory negligence were properly submitted to the jury, and from it the jury might reasonably have found in favor of the plaintiff upon both issues. The court did not err in so holding, and in refusing to set aside the verdict.

The defendant’s motion for a judgment notwith *528 standing the verdict was entirely inappropriate to the situation before the court. Such a judgment is not rendered upon the evidence, but upon the admissions of the pleadings. The judgment is in its essence one by confession. The defendant’s pleadings consisted solely of denials of the allegations of the complaint. Of necessity, therefore, there are no uncontroverted allegations entitling him to a judgment, even if it be assumed that such a judgment may be rendered in favor of a defendant upon the plaintiff’s cause of action, as at common law it could not be. 1 Swift’s Digest, s. p. 779; Stephen on Pleading, s. p. 98; Schermerhorn v. Schermerhorn, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 513, 514; Smith v. Powers, 15 N. H. 546, 562; 11 Eney. of Pleading & Practice, 912, 913.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The evidence in this ease is such that the issues as to the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s lack of contributory negligence were properly submitted to the jury, and from it the jury might reasonably have found in favor of the plaintiff upon both issues. The court did not err in so holding, and in refusing to set aside the verdict.

The defendant’s motion for a judgment notwith *528 standing the verdict was entirely inappropriate to the situation before the court. Such a judgment is not rendered upon the evidence, but upon the admissions of the pleadings. The judgment is in its essence one by confession. The defendant’s pleadings consisted solely of denials of the allegations of the complaint. Of necessity, therefore, there are no uncontroverted allegations entitling him to a judgment, even if it be assumed that such a judgment may be rendered in favor of a defendant upon the plaintiff’s cause of action, as at common law it could not be. 1 Swift’s Digest, s. p. 779; Stephen on Pleading, s. p. 98; Schermerhorn v. Schermerhorn, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 513, 514; Smith v. Powers, 15 N. H. 546, 562; 11 Eney. of Pleading & Practice, 912, 913.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A. 186, 87 Conn. 527, 1913 Conn. LEXIS 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/streitweiser-v-lightbourn-conn-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack