Fay v. Hartford & Springfield Street Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Motion for leave to file a motion for the correction of the mandate of this court in returning the cause to the Superior Court for a new trial. Copies of the motion were sent to each of the justices (Practice Book, 1908, p. 279, § 41), and at the opening of the January term, 1909, of this court the preliminary motion was denied.
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, C. J.
We are now asked to alter our mandate so as to make it, after setting aside the judgment for the plaintiff, remand the cause, with instructions to the Superior Court to enter judgment for the defendant.
The judgment which has been set aside followed the. verdict, and it is plain that the facts found by that verdict could not support a judgment for the defendant, veredicto non obstante.
The request now made ignores two things: the nature of a trial by jury, and the function of an appeal from a judgment rendered on a verdict.
The plaintiff had a right to have her cause determined, as to the facts…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Farrington v. CheponisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1911
- Edwards v. Grace Hospital SocietySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1944
- Gray v. MossmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1917
- Ackerson v. Erwin M. Jennings Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
- Marshall v. FentonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.