Trout v. Cassco Corp.

Fourth Circuit

Trout v. Cassco Corp.

191 F.2d 1022, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2675

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 29, 1951

Docket6326

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 191 F.2d 1022 (Trout v. Cassco Corp.) 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

Trout v. Cassco Corp., 191 F.2d 1022, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2675 (4th Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in an action at law tried before a jury. No objections to the admission or rejection of testimony are *1023 relied on, there was no request tO' direct a verdict, no exceptions were taken to the court’s charge, and no other matter is put forward which presents any question of law for our consideration. It is argued that the jury reached a wrong conclusion in its verdict; but this involves a pure question of fact which is not reviewable by us on appeal. The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution expressly provides that “no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” There was a motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial; but this was a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial judge and furnishes no basis for relief on appeal in the absence of abuse of discretion, which is not here present. See Kirstner v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp., 4 Cir., 190 F.2d 422.

Affirmed.

*1024 J

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in an action at law tried before a jury. No objections to the admission or rejection of testimony are *1023 relied on, there was no request tO' direct a verdict, no exceptions were taken to the court’s charge, and no other matter is put forward which presents any question of law for our consideration. It is argued that the jury reached a wrong conclusion in its verdict; but this involves a pure question of fact which is not reviewable by us on appeal. The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution expressly provides that “no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” There was a motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial; but this was a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial judge and furnishes no basis for relief on appeal in the absence of abuse of discretion, which is not here present. See Kirstner v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp., 4 Cir., 190 F.2d 422.

Affirmed.

*1024 J

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 F.2d 1022, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trout-v-cassco-corp-ca4-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack