Court Opinion

ID: 9444696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:09:05.190235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:58.220111
License: Public Domain

TUTTLE, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
With deference to the views of the majority of the court, I must dissent from that part of the judgment of the court that directs that judgment be entered in favor of appellant. Consistently with the views we expressed in Jackson v. King, 223 F.2d 714, I think this case should be sent back for a new trial. The question as to whether the sales here in question were a liquidation of an investment or constituted the carrying on of a business should not have been taken from the jury by the trial court, and it should not be taken from the jury by us to achieve the opposite result. As we said in Jackson v. King: “Although the facts were largely undisputed, we think that no legal principle compels the findings therefrom of the ultimate fact. *359* * * we think this is a conclusion on which men may reasonably differ, the very sort of question on which a jury verdict ought not to be disturbed.”
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.