TREAT MANUFACTURING COMPANY
v.
STANDARD STEEL AND IRON COMPANY
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.
Treat Manufacturing Company sued Standard Steel and Iron Company in a trespass action, but the trial judge directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendants, and judgment was entered against the plaintiff. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error, holding that a trial court may direct a jury to find for the defendant when the evidence does not support the plaintiff's case, and that any error in doing so must be reviewed in the appropriate court rather than on direct appeal to the Supreme Court based on a deprivation of jury trial rights.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The Chief Justice:
This was an action of trespass on the case. At the conclusion of the trial defendants moved the court to charge the jury to find the issues for defendants, which motion was granted, and the jury was directed, upon the whole case, to return a verdict for defendants, plaintiff duly excepting. Thereupon the jury returned a verdict accordingly ; plaintiff moved for a'new trial, which was denied, and judgment was given against plaintiff on the verdict. This judgment was rendered December 3, 1890. The writ of error from this court was brought November 24, 1891. The only ground relied on to sustain the jurisdiction of this court is that the case “ involves the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States;” because plaintiff in error was deprived of the right of trial by jury. But it is well settled that where the trial judge is satisfied upon the evidence that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, and that a verdict, if rendered for plaintiff, must be set aside, the court may instruct the jury to find for the defendant. Grand Chute v. Winegar, 15 Wall. 355; Marion County v. Clark, 91 U. S. 278; Herbert v. Butler, 97 U. S. 319.
If the court errs as matter of law in so doing, the remedy lies in a review in the appropriate court.
Writ of error dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fayerweather v. Ritch, 195 U.S. 276 (U.S. 1904)
-
Wagner Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Lyndon, 262 U.S. 226 (U.S. 1923)…ch an attack serve the purpose of a writ of error. More than this, even if it were held that the direction deprived the defendant of the right of trial by jury (a holding shown to be erroneous by Treat Manufacturing Co. v. Standard Steel & Iron Co., 157 U. S. 674), still the deprivation of a right of trial by jury in a state court does not deny the parties due process of law under the Federal Constitution. Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90; Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22, 31; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S.…
Authorities Cited
- Herbert v. Butler, 97 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1877)
- Grand Chute v. Winegar. [At Law.], 15 Wall. 355 (U.S. 1872)