Summary
In Priester v. Southern Ry. Co., 6 F.2d 878 (4th Cir. 1925) the circumstances were such that the judgment of the trial court on the second trial was in effect entered on the mandate of the appellate court.
Summary of this case from Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. v. RoosthOpinion
No. 2344.
June 15, 1925.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of South Carolina, at Charleston; Ernest F. Cochran, Judge.
Action at law by Mrs. M.A. Priester and her husband against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.
T.M. Boulware, of Barnwell, S.C., and George Warren, of Hampton, S.C., for plaintiffs in error.
Frank G. Tompkins, of Columbia, S.C., and J.W. Manuel, of Hampton, S.C., for defendant in error.
Before WOODS, WADDILL, and ROSE, Circuit Judges.
This case has been here before. 289 F. 945. At that time, after full consideration, a judgment below for the plaintiffs was reversed, on the ground that they had offered no evidence legally sufficient to support a verdict in their favor. The case was then remanded for a new trial. That has been now held, and under the direction of the learned District Judge a verdict was returned for the defendant. The plaintiffs assign error.
It goes without saying that, if the testimony offered at the second trial did not differ in any material respect from that which was presented when the case was first heard, the District Court had no choice other than to give the direction it did. Thompson v. Maxwell Land Grant R. Co., 168 U.S. 456, 18 S. Ct. 121, 42 L. Ed. 539. We have carefully examined the present record, and fail to find any substantial distinction between the evidence in it and that which we considered some two years ago.
Affirmed.