Burke v. Wood
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Alabama
On Motion for New Trial. The defendant moves the court to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial in the above stated cause because tbe verdict was contrary to the evidence; because tbe verdict was contrary td the weight of the evidence; because the verdict was contrary to the charge of the court; because the court erred in refusing to give the general affirmative charge for the defendant. The defendant bases his motion mainly on the first and last grounds stated.
Read the full summary
On Motion for New Trial. The defendant moves the court to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial in the above stated cause because tbe verdict was contrary to the evidence; because tbe verdict was contrary td the weight of the evidence; because the verdict was contrary to the charge of the court; because the court erred in refusing to give the general affirmative charge for the defendant. The defendant bases his motion mainly on the first and last grounds stated. The plaintiff’s suit was for work and labor alleged to have been done by him for the defendant, at the latter’s request, from…
1Opinion of the CourtToulmin, District Judge
(after staling the facts as above). The counsel for the defendant in his argument on this motion limited his contention in support of the motion to two grounds, to wit: That the verdict was contrary to the evidence relating to the character of the work and labor done by the plaintiff, and to the charge of the court thereon; and that the court erred in refusing to give the general affirmative charge for the defendant. The contention on the part of the defendant is that the evidence clearly showed that the work and labor done by the plaintiff, compensation for which he claims in this suit, was…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Oscanyan v. Arms Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Trist v. ChildSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Pleasants v. FantSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Lincoln v. PowerSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Chippewa Valley & Superior Railway Co. v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1889
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Kemble v. WeaverSupreme Court of Iowa · 1925
- Northern Kentucky Emergency Medical Services, Inc. v. Christ Hospital Corp.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1993
- Rumely v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1952