Case Name: MOSS et al. v. CITY OF PITTSBURG
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1910-12-12
Citations: 184 F. 325
Docket Number: No. 1,431 (63)
Parties: MOSS et al. v. CITY OF PITTSBURG.
Judges: Before GRAY, BUEEINGTON, and LANNING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 184
Pages: 325–325

Head Matter:
MOSS et al. v. CITY OF PITTSBURG.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
December 12, 1910.)
No. 1,431 (63).
Judgment (§ 256 ) — Validity—Variance from Record.
A judgment, which purports to have been entered on the verdict of a jury, is not supported by the record, where that discloses no verdict, but shows a compulsory nonsuit.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Judgment, Dee. Dig. § 250. ]
In Error to the Circuit Court of tlie United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Action at law by Erank H. Moss and others against the City of Pittsburg. Judgment for defendant (178 Eed. 605), and plaintiffs bring error.
Reversed.
Asa Eeroy Carter, for plaintiffs in error.
Charles A. O’Brien, C. Elmer Bown, and Lee C. Beatty, for defendant in error.
Before GRAY, BUEEINGTON, and LANNING, Circuit Judges.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 3907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIM.
The final judgment in this case in the court below purports to have been entered upon the verdict of the jury in favor of the defendant, the city of Pittsburg, against the plaintiffs. The record discloses no verdict, and in fact the trial court ordered a compulsory nonsuit. Accordingly the judgment is not supported by the record.
The judgment will therefore be reversed, and a new trial awarded.