Document: 332 U.S. 571 68 S.Ct. 246 92 L.Ed. 177 GLOBE LIQUOR CO., Inc.v.SAN ROMAN et al. No. 205. Argued Dec. 17, 1947. Decided Jan. 5, 1948. Rehearing Denied Feb. 2, Mr. Benjamin W. Heineman, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. Nat M. Kahn, respondents. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion Court. 1 The petitioner, Globe Liquor Company, Inc., brought this act on in Federal District Court against respondents, Frank and Dorothea San Roman, doing business under name International Industries. complaint claimed damages an alleged breach warranty sale certain liquors. An answer was filed; issues were appropriately joined. After all evidence had been introduced, each party requested a directed verdict. petitioner's motion granted, verdict returned its favor, judgment accordingly entered. respondents then moved new trial ground among others that there many contested fact which should have submitted to jury. They did not move Rule 50(b) Rules Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, provides part: 'Within 10 days after reception verdict, who has may any entered thereon set aside accordance with his * *. A be joined motion, or prayed alternative. If court allow stand reopen either order direct entry as if directed.' On appeal Circuit Appeals only favor petitioner but also remanded case directions enter respondent. 7 Cir., 160 F.2d 800. We granted certiorari, 756, 74, consider apparent inconsistency between latter action our holding Cone v. West Virginia Pulp Paper Co., 330 212, 67 752, 755. 2 In we held without power final loser jury where he failed follow timely required by 50(b). pointed out vested district judges discretion, circumstances outlined rule, choose two alternatives: (1) reopening granting trial, (2) ordering losing party's request judge. 3 It is urged reasons supported decision are relevant here because, unlike case, specific However significant variance cases might some purposes, it no importance here. By terms rule applies equally directed, case. 4 Furthermore, very arose emphasize having first pass upon whether error result finally ending controversy. For dispute parties parts deposition containing important properly introduced court. Both took position some, though different portions deposition, presented evidence. decided assumption part ever admitted argue read therefore can considered Whether before court, even ends justice contained offered, questions entitled passed instance What said peculiarly appropriate here: 'Determination calls judge saw heard witnesses feel appellate printed transcript impart.' 5 Petitioner strongly urges such justified directing resting reinstated. however, depends number factors, including interpretation law Illinois contract made, proper pleadings, determination disputed whole part, effect admitted. Under these circumstances, reversing remanding cause affirmed. But since made 50(b), their favor. go back trial. 6 so ordered.

Category: 8