From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Meyerkorth v. McKeone

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
Jan 4, 1945
4 F.R.D. 323 (W.D. Mo. 1945)

Opinion

         Action by T. D. Mitchell against the Kansas City Public Service Company, wherein defendant brought in J. Roger DeWitt as a third party defendant. On motion for judgment against third party defendant, and on plaintiff's motion for new trial.

         Third party complaint dismissed, and motion for new trial overruled.

          Fred Bellemere and Roy W. Rucker, both of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

          Charles L. Carr, Hale Houts, A. C. Trippe, and Hogsett, Trippe, Depping & Houts, all of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

          Fred Bellemere and Roy W. Rucker, both of Kansas City, Mo., for third party defendant.


          REEVES, District Judge.

          It is unnecessary to discuss the motion for judgment in favor of the third party plaintiff against the third party defendant. Counsel have advised that an adjustment has been made between these litigants. However, an inspection of the pleadings reveals that the plaintiff made no claim against third party defendant, nor did third party plaintiff make such claim. It was suggested by the third party plaintiff that the third party defendant might be liable to the plaintiff. Since the verdict of the jury was for the defendant, under the pleadings the third party plaintiff would have no claim against the third party defendant.

         The third party defendant asks for nothing, and it would follow that the third party complaint should be dismissed. It will be so ordered.

         In his motion for a new trial plaintiff asserts three grounds, namely, that the verdict of the jury was against the evidence and the weight of the evidence; that the verdict of the jury was contrary to physical facts; and, finally, that the court committed error in charging the jury that the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover if the testimony in its judgment was evenly balanced on the issue of liability.

          The verdict of the jury was not against the weight of the evidence, nor did it violate known physical facts. The charge of the court was a proper one under the authorities. It would follow that the motion for a new trial should be overruled. It will be so ordered.


Summaries of

Meyerkorth v. McKeone

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
Jan 4, 1945
4 F.R.D. 323 (W.D. Mo. 1945)
Case details for

Meyerkorth v. McKeone

Case Details

Full title:MEYERKORTH v. McKEONE et al. WILSON v. SAME.

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division

Date published: Jan 4, 1945

Citations

4 F.R.D. 323 (W.D. Mo. 1945)

Citing Cases

Alabama Vermiculite Corporation v. Patterson

Before the joinder of the Theo Bros. can defeat the jurisdiction of this Court, it must appear from the…

Lincoln v. Herr

Furthermore, the plaintiff in his pleading, for reasons personal to himself, might not have desired to set…