Court Opinion

ID: 9443694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:27:44.945408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:34.477258
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant has called our attention to a colloquy which it claims constituted a motion for new trial. There was no mention made of this on the appeal from the directed verdict, nor did the trial judge mention it during or following the colloquy, nor did he rule on such a motion in the alternative, as required by Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243, 61 S.Ct. 189, 85 L.Ed. 147.1
Perhaps, were we to construe strictly the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Johnson v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co.,2 we should say that appellant’s “motions cannot be measured by its unexpressed intention or wants.”3 However, since the defendant moved to have the verdict set aside On the ground, inter alia, that it was against “the weight of the evidence,” we will read this as a motion for new trial4 which, though ambiguously articulated, must now be ruled on by the trial judge. Hence, the second cause of action is remanded for the exercise of the trial judge’s discretion on the alternative motion for new trial.

. The defendant’s motions with respect to the second cause of action, were disposed of as follows:
(1) At the close of the plaintiff’s case:
“I .move to dismiss the [second] cause of action on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Decision reserved.)
(2) At the close of all the evidence:
“The Court: I suppose the defendant will renew all the same motions?
“Mr. O’Brien: And I am' renewing the same motions, * * * And ask for a direction in favor of the defendant. (Decision reserved.)”
(3) After the jury’s verdict for plaintiff: , . . -
“Mr. O’Brien: On behalf of the defendant I move to set aside this verdict upon the ground that it is against the evidence, against the weight of the evi- ■ dence and all the grounds enumerated in the Rules of Federal Practice; and upon the further ground that the verdict is excessive.
“The Court: I think it is, Mr. Guttman.
* * * * *
“I am talking only about the second cause of action.
“There was no proof of it at all.
* * * I don’t think the plaintiff established it by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence, * *. * Now I am going to set the verdict aside on the second cause of action. * * * ”
The judgment below said “The second cause of action * * * is dismissed, upon the merits. * * * ” (This was, in effect, judgment n. o. v.)

. 344 U.S. 48, 73 S.Ct. 125. Defendant, having moved for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, later moved, after verdict and judgment, to have the verdict set aside on the ground that it was excessive, contrary to the law, to the evidence, to the weight of the evidence. This was held insufficient to satisfy the requirement of Fed.Rules Civ. Proc. rule 50(b), 28 U.S.C.A., that plaintiff “move to have the verdict and any judgment entered thereon set aside and to have judgment entered in accordance with his motion for a directed verdict”.

. 344 U.S. at page 51, 73 S.Ct. at page 127.

. As to this point, see Johnson v. N. Y. N. H. & H. R. Co., 344 U.S. 48, 49, 54, 73 S.Ct. 125.