Bartley v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Co.

In the first trial of this case, after appellant (plaintiff below) had rested, the court-erroneously directed a verdict for appellee. Bartley v. Chicago & E. I. R. Co. (1940), 216 Ind. 512, 24 N. E. (2d) 405. In the second trial, after both parties had presented all their evidence, appellees’ motion for a directed verdict in their favor was sustained and the jury returned such a verdict.

Appellant in the fifth specification of his motion for new trial attempts to predicate error on the court’s ruling sustaining appellees’ motion for verdict and, in the sixth, “giving to the jury, at the close…