Meers v. Childers
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Tennessee; John E. McCall, Judge. Action by Albert Childers against Meers & Dayton. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
1Opinion of the Court
WARRINGTON, Circuit Judge.
Defendant in error brought an action for personal injuries against plaintiffs in error, and recovered a verdict of S3,500, which, upon an accepted order of remittitur, was reduced to $2,000 and judgment was entered accordingly. We shall speak of Childers as plaintiff, and Meers & Dayton as defendants. At the close of the testimony offered on both sides, the defendants upon specific grounds moved that a verdict be directed in their favor. The motion was denied, and exception reserved. Error is prosecuted upon assignments which are treated by all the counsel as…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Kreigh v. Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Rochford v. Pennsylvania Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909
- Byers v. Carnegie Steel Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1908
- United States v. Union Pac. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909
- Casey-Hedges Co. v. OliphantCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1916
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Globe S. S. Co. v. MossCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1917
- New Ætna Portland Cement Co. v. HattCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1916
- United States v. DanielsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
- Carolina, C. & O. Ry. Co. v. StroupCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1917