Opinion ID: 280810
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Motion for New Trial on the Issue of Damages

Text: 45 Seeburg has in its brief, a section, The Alternate Cross-Appeal as to Damages, which states that it moved for a new trial in two aspects, one being application for new trial on its affirmative claim for relief, (this ground has been abandoned), and the other being an application for a new trial as to damages in the alternative if a motion for judgment N.O.V. was not granted. The court below granted the motion for judgment N.O.V.    It did nothing one way or the other with defendant's motion for new trial as to damages on the counter-claim. 46 The motion for new trial or for judgment N.O.V. read as follows: 47  Plaintiffs move for new trial in the cause or in the alternative for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In connection with the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, plaintiffs ask that the judgment for defendants be set aside and that the judgment be given to the plaintiffs in the amount of $40,000.00, plus fees and costs as prayed for in this record. 48  This motion in both its alternative aspects is supported by the brief in the motion for new trial filed herewith   . [Emphasis added] 49 The second sentence referring to judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to plaintiff's claim for $40,000.00, refers to a contention which has been expressly abandoned by Seeburg in this appeal. The first sentence however is broad enough to support its motion for a judgment N.O.V. as to the $129,317.00, verdict in favor of Minthorne, being the motion which the court granted. As to the motion for a new trial, we then have left the bare statement, Plaintiffs move for a new trial in the case    this motion    is supported by the brief   . 50 If we consider the brief as part of the motion, and this is certainly extending every consideration to Seeburg, then we find grounds for the motion for new trial on the issue of damages unruled on in the trial court. See Robinson v. Isbrandtsen Co., 203 F.2d 514, 516 (2 Cir. 1953). 51 In the fourth point in the brief, the contention is that the verdict is so completely against the weight of the evidence that it should not be allowed to stand, and the evidence is extensively discussed. 52 We hold that there is a motion for new trial on the issue of damages, not yet ruled on by the trial court.