Case ID: f2d_138/html/0608-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MINTON, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

EDWARDS et al. v. CRAIG.
    No. 8269.
    Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Oct. 25, 1943.
    Rehearing Denied Dee. 10, 1943.
    Jacob S. White and Geo. C. Forrey, III, both of Indianapolis, Ind., and John G. Ap-pel, of Chicago, 111., for appellant.
    Thomas M. Morris, of Chicago, 111., for appellee.
    Before SPARKS, MAJOR, and MIN-TON, Circuit Judges.
   MINTON, Circuit Judge.

The defendant-appellant seeks to reverse a judgment of the District Court entered upon the verdicts of a jury which awarded damages to the plaintiffs-appellees for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The defendant-appellant claims there is no evidence in the record to sustain the allegation of the complaint that the defendant-appellant’s agent was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.

The defendant-appellant made no motion for a directed verdict. In his motions for a new trial, some of the grounds alleged therefor were the insufficiency of the evidence. Since the defendant-appellant made no motion for a directed verdict, the insufficiency of the evidence cannot be raised here. Mutual Benefit Health & Acc. Ass’n v. Thomas, 8 Cir., 123 F.2d 353, 355; Western Produce Co. v. Folliard, 5 Cir., 93 F.2d 588, 589; Fricke v. General Accident Fire & Life Assur. Corp., Ltd., 8 Cir., 59 F.2d 563, 564.

Ordinarily, the overruling of a motion for a new trial is not assignable here as error. Van Stone v. Stillwell & Bierce Mfg. Co., 142 U.S. 128, 134, 12 S.Ct. 181, 35 L.Ed. 961; Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Heck, 102 U.S. 120, 26 L.Ed. 58; Ford Motor Co. v. Hotel Woodward, 2 Cir., 271 F. 625; Illinois Central R. Co. v. Horace Turner Co., 5 Cir., 9 F.2d 6; Terzo v. United States, 8 Cir., 9 F.2d 357; Courtnay v. King, 9 Cir., 220 F. 112; Bidwell v. Geo. B. Douglas Trading Co., 2 Cir., 183 F. 93; Condran v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 8 Cir., 67 F. 522, 28 L.R.A. 749. The record presents no question for review, and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.