Summary
granting defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict where an "issue had been removed from controversy by plaintiff's admission of [defendant]'s request" was submitted to the jury in error
Summary of this case from Kida v. Ecowater Sys. LLCOpinion
Nos. 15476-15480.
Argued February 7, 1966.
Decided February 18, 1966. Rehearing Denied in No. 15479 March 11, 1966. Rehearing Denied in No. 15480 April 5, 1966.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Alfred L. Luongo, Judge, 225 F. Supp. 628.
Norman Paul Harvey, Liebert, Harvey, Herting Short, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant Hanigan, etc.
Joseph G. Manta, Esq., LaBrum Doak, Philadelphia, Pa. (James M. Marsh, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant Hinkle, etc.
Harry Nixon, Philadelphia, Pa. (Michael A. Foley, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant Tyler, etc.
Kenneth Syken, Richter, Lord, Toll Cavanaugh, Philadelphia, Pa. (B. Nathaniel Richter, Jack J. Bernstein, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant McSparran. Counsel for appellee Hanigan and others.
Before McLAUGHLIN, FORMAN and GANEY, Circuit Judges.
We find that as to the merits, with particular reference to the primary questions of liability of appellants, the first trial of these suits was without substantial error and that the issues were properly submitted to the jury.
We further find that the refusal of the trial judge to mold the verdicts in these causes after the first trial thereof was within his discretion.
The judgments in these cases will be affirmed.