Wertheim Coal & Coke Co. v. Harding

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

Wertheim Coal & Coke Co. v. Harding

145 F. 660, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4792

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 9, 1906

DocketNo. 33

StatusPublished

This text of 145 F. 660 (Wertheim Coal & Coke Co. v. Harding) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wertheim Coal & Coke Co. v. Harding, 145 F. 660, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4792 (circtedpa 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

J. B. McPPIERSON, District Judge.

This case presented a pure question of fact, which from the defendants’ point of view is so plain that the verdict against them ought to be characterized as “perverse,” and should therefore be summarily set aside. To some extent I am in harmony with this position, for I am rather inclined to believe that if I had been a juror I should have favored a verdict for the defendants ; but when I come to go over the evidence as it is preserved in the record, I cannot avoid the conclusion that the verdict is not without sufficient support. The oral testimony is in direct conflict, but the weight of it is against the defendants, and even the letters, on which so much stress is properly laid, are not wholly to be counted on that side. Taking all of the evidence together, I think it. must in fairness be said that the issue was so far doubtful as to forbid the judge to substitute his own opinion on the facts in the place, of the opinion of the jury.

A new trial is therefore refused.

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

J. B. McPPIERSON, District Judge.

This case presented a pure question of fact, which from the defendants’ point of view is so plain that the verdict against them ought to be characterized as “perverse,” and should therefore be summarily set aside. To some extent I am in harmony with this position, for I am rather inclined to believe that if I had been a juror I should have favored a verdict for the defendants ; but when I come to go over the evidence as it is preserved in the record, I cannot avoid the conclusion that the verdict is not without sufficient support. The oral testimony is in direct conflict, but the weight of it is against the defendants, and even the letters, on which so much stress is properly laid, are not wholly to be counted on that side. Taking all of the evidence together, I think it. must in fairness be said that the issue was so far doubtful as to forbid the judge to substitute his own opinion on the facts in the place, of the opinion of the jury.

A new trial is therefore refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 F. 660, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wertheim-coal-coke-co-v-harding-circtedpa-1906.