Case Name: CASEY v. PENNSYLVANIA ASPHALT PAV. CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1902-02-12
Citations: 114 F. 189
Docket Number: No. 45
Parties: CASEY v. PENNSYLVANIA ASPHALT PAV. CO.
Judges: Before DADLAS and GRAY, Circuit Judges, and KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 114
Pages: 189–189

Head Matter:
CASEY v. PENNSYLVANIA ASPHALT PAV. CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
February 12, 1902.)
No. 45,
September Term, 1901.
Bus Judicata — Judgment Non Oust ante Veredicto.
A judgment entered for defendant, notwithstanding a verdict taken subject to a point reserved, is not an adjudication based upon matter alleged in arrest of judgment, but is merely the legal consequence of a ruling by the court that upon all the evidence defendant was entitled to a verdict, and its effect as an adjudication upon the merits is the same as a judgment upon a directed verdict.
Jn Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
James S. Young, for plaintiff in error.
Wm. Hall, Jr., for defendant in error.
Before DADLAS and GRAY, Circuit Judges, and KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

Opinion:
DALLAS, Circuit Judge.
The very ingenious argument made on behalf of the plaintiff in error ascribes to a judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto a character quite different, we think, from that which has heretofore been attributed to it. It is not, either in form or effect, an adjudication against the plaintiff upon matter alleged in arrest of judgment, but is merely the legal consequence of a ruling by the court that, upon all the evidence, the defendant was entitled to a verdict. Such a ruling, when, made upon the trial, is given effect through binding instructions, and between a judgment for defendant in pursuance of a directed verdict, and a judgment entered in his favor notwithstanding a verdict which had been taken for the plaintiff subject to a point reserved, there is no substantial distinction. They rest upon precisely the same foundation.
We adopt the opinion which was filed by the learned judge of the circuit court (109 Fed. 744), and for the reasons there presented the judgment of that court is affirmed.