Cram v. Bach

The defendant, Amil C. Bach, contends that the trial court erred with respect to certain of its instructions to the jury; that the jury’s finding of duress is not sustained by the evidence; and that the jury’s finding that the plaintiff, I-Iarold C. Cram, did not ratify the contract, is not sustained by the evidence. Upon the oral argument, counsel for the defendant contended that Judge Varnum exceeded his jurisdiction in reinstating the jury’s verdict and granting interlocutory judgment thereon. For the reason that we are obliged to determine that Judge Varnum was without power to adopt the…