U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 1943

Edwards v. Craig

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Decided October 25, 1943 · Minton

138 F.2d 608; 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2613 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Jacob S. White and Geo. C. Forrey, III, both of Indianapolis, Ind., and John G. Ap-pel, of Chicago, 111., for appellant., Thomas M. Morris, of Chicago, 111., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision. The 5 that cite it most often are listed here.

Southern Railway Co. v. Miller (6th Cir. 1960)
Fort Worth and Denver Railway Company v. Wayne Harris (5th Cir. 1956)
Traders & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Shoemake (10th Cir. 1952)
Charles v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. (7th Cir. 1951)
Jorgensen v. York Ice Machinery Corporation (2d Cir. 1947)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

MINTON, Circuit Judge.

The defendant-appellant seeks to reverse a judgment of the District Court entered upon the verdicts of a jury which awarded damages to the plaintiffs-appellees for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The defendant-appellant claims there is no evidence in the record to sustain the allegation of the complaint that the defendant-appellant’s agent was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.

The defendant-appellant made no motion for a directed verdict. In his motions for a new trial, some of the grounds alleged therefor were the insufficiency of the evidence. Since the defendant-appellant made no motion for a directed verdict, the insufficiency of the evidence cannot be raised here. Mutual Benefit Health & Acc. Ass’n v. Thomas, 8 Cir., 123 F.2d 353, 355; Western Produce Co. v. Folliard, 5 Cir., 93 F.2d 588, 589; Fricke v. General Accident Fire & Life Assur. Corp., Ltd., 8 Cir., 59 F.2d 563, 564.

Ordinarily, the overruling of a motion for a new trial is not assignable here as error. Van Stone v. Stillwell & Bierce Mfg. Co., 142 U.S. 128, 134, 12 S.Ct. 181, 35 L.Ed. 961; Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Heck, 102 U.S. 120, *60926 L.Ed. 58; Ford Motor Co. v. Hotel Woodward, 2 Cir., 271 F. 625; Illinois Central R. Co. v. Horace Turner Co., 5 Cir., 9 F.2d 6; Terzo v. United States, 8 Cir., 9 F.2d 357; Courtnay v. King, 9 Cir., 220 F. 112; Bidwell v. Geo. B. Douglas Trading Co., 2 Cir., 183 F. 93; Condran v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 8 Cir., 67 F. 522, 28 L.R.A. 749. The record presents no question for review, and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.