EDWARDS ET AL.
v.
CRAIG
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the defendant's failure to move for a directed verdict precludes raising the insufficiency of evidence on appeal. The overruling of a motion for a new trial is also not typically assignable as error.
Plaintiffs-appellees were awarded damages by a jury for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The defendant-appellant sought to reverse the ju…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Scope Of Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
MINTON, Circuit Judge.
The defendant-appellant seeks to reverse a judgment of the District Court entered upon the verdicts of a jury which awarded damages to the plaintiffs-appellees for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The defendant-appellant claims there is no evidence in the record to sustain the allegation of the complaint that the defendant-appellant’s agent was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.
The defendant-appellant made no motion for a directed verdict. In his motions for a new trial, some of the grounds alleged therefor were the insufficiency of the evidence. Since the defendant-appellant made no motion for a directed verdict, the insufficiency of the evidence cannot be raised here. Mutual Benefit Health & Acc. Ass’n v. Thomas, 8 Cir., 123 F. 2d 353, 355; Western Produce Co. v. Folliard, 5 Cir., 93 F. 2d 588, 589; Fricke v. General Accident Fire & Life Assur. Corp., Ltd., 8 Cir., 59 F. 2d 563, 564.
Ordinarily, the overruling of a motion for a new trial is not assignable here as error. Van Stone v. Stillwell & Bierce Mfg. Co., 142 U.S. 128, 134, 12 S.Ct. 181, 35 L.Ed. 961; Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Heck, 102 U.S. 120, 26 L.Ed. 58; Ford Motor Co. v. Hotel Woodward, 2 Cir., 271 F. 625; Illinois Central R. Co. v. Horace Turner Co., 5 Cir., 9 F. 2d 6; Terzo v. United States, 8 Cir., 9 F. 2d 357; Courtnay v. King, 9 Cir., 220 F. 112; Bidwell v. Geo. B. Douglas Trading Co., 2 Cir., 183 F. 93; Condran v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 8 Cir., 67 F. 522, 28 L.R.A. 749. The record presents no question for review, and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jorgensen v. York Ice Mach. Corp., 160 F.2d 432 (2d Cir. 1947)
-
Fort Worth & Denver Ry. Co. v. Harris, 230 F.2d 680 (5th Cir. 1956)
-
Charles v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 188 F.2d 691 (7th Cir. 1951)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Van Stone v. Stillwell & Bierce Mfg. Co., 142 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1891)
- Ry. Co. v. Heck, 102 U.S. 120 (U.S. 1880)
- Mut. Ben. Health & Accident Ass'n v. Thomas, 123 F.2d 353 (8th Cir. 1941)
- Fricke v. General Accident, 59 F.2d 563 (8th Cir. 1932)
- Terzo v. United States, 9 F.2d 357 (8th Cir. 1925)
- W. Produce Co., Inc. v. Folliard, 93 F.2d 588 (5th Cir. 1937)
- Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Horace Turner Corp., 9 F.2d 6 (5th Cir. 1925)