From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Healy v. Cumberland County Power Light Company

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Cumberland County
Sep 29, 1926
134 A. 544 (Me. 1926)

Opinion

Decided September 29, 1926.

Exceptions to directed verdict in favor of defendant. It is well settled that in considering exceptions to the direction of a verdict the only question is whether the jury would have been warranted by the evidence to find a verdict contrary to the one ordered. If a verdict to the contrary could not be sustained it is the duty of the presiding Justice to direct the verdict. If such a verdict would be sustainable the issue of fact should be submitted to the jury. Royal v. Bar Harbor Union River Power Company, 114 Maine, 220.

A careful examination of the record fails to discover evidence of the negligence of the defendant, and upon the same record a verdict in favor of the plaintiff could not be sustained. Exceptions overruled.

Jacob H. Berman, Edward J. Berman and Benjamin L. Berman, for plaintiff.

Verrill, Hale, Booth Ives, for defendant.


Summaries of

Healy v. Cumberland County Power Light Company

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Cumberland County
Sep 29, 1926
134 A. 544 (Me. 1926)
Case details for

Healy v. Cumberland County Power Light Company

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS F. HEALY vs. CUMBERLAND COUNTY POWER LIGHT COMPANY. JOHN LEONARD…

Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Cumberland County

Date published: Sep 29, 1926

Citations

134 A. 544 (Me. 1926)
134 A. 544

Citing Cases

Fort Fairfield v. Millinocket

The question raised by the exception to the ruling by which the jury was ordered to return a verdict for the…