Potter v. City of Coatesville

DICKINSON, District Judge.

The verdict in this case was for the plaintiff. Notwithstanding this, the motion is by the plaintiff. The explanation lies in the trial fact that the larger part of the plaintiff’s claim was thrown out of consideration by the jury following a ruling of the trial-judge. The verdict was a directed verdict. Plaintiff in consequence has the right to any inference which might have been drawn in his favor.

The real question is the construction of a contract. Plaintiff was making wha.t were two claims in one action. For one of these he recovered, with the acquiescence, for…