From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Doughty

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jun 15, 1945
149 F.2d 812 (5th Cir. 1945)

Opinion

No. 11282.

June 15, 1945.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Adrian J. Caillouet, Judge.

Action by Tom Edd Doughty against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

H. Alva Brumfield, Jr., and Justin C. Daspit, both of Baton Rouge, La., for appellant.

James D. Womack, of Baton Rouge, La., for appellee.

Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.


The only question of substance involved in this case is whether or not the verdict is excessive, and a number of cases from the state courts of Louisiana are cited in support of that contention by appellant. The quantum of a verdict, however, is for the jury and the court below. This Court has no jurisdiction to correct a verdict merely because it is excessive. See Houston Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Kelley, 5 Cir., 131 F. 627; Swift Co. v. Ellinor, 5 Cir., 101 F.2d 131; Lincoln v. Power, 151 U.S. 436, 14 S.Ct. 387, 38 L.Ed. 224; Herencia v. Guzman, 219 U.S. 44, 31 S.Ct. 135, 55 L.Ed. 81; and Southern Ry.-Carolina Division v. Bennett, 233 U.S. 80, 34 S.Ct. 566, 58 L.Ed. 860.

Judgment below is affirmed.


Summaries of

State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Doughty

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jun 15, 1945
149 F.2d 812 (5th Cir. 1945)
Case details for

State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Doughty

Case Details

Full title:STATE FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. v. DOUGHTY

Court:Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Jun 15, 1945

Citations

149 F.2d 812 (5th Cir. 1945)

Citing Cases

Legler v. Kennington-Saenger Theatres

We are mindful of our decisions to the effect that, ordinarily, federal appellate courts will not inquire…

Massachusetts Bonding and Ins. Co. v. Abbott

In addition, if we could agree that mere excessiveness in a verdict is reviewable, this would not avail…