TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Ludwic Fusilier

MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant, v. Ludwic FUSILIER, Appellee

Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Ludwic Fusilier, 256 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1958)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 9, 1958
Docket
No. 17000
Judges
Hutcheson, Tuttle, Brown
Citations
256 F.2d 2781 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 9201958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4330

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

On April 10, 1957 the jury returned a general verdict for the plaintiff, Fusilier, for $5,000 accompanied by answers to two special interrogatories, (1) was the defendant Railroad guilty of negligence which was a proximate cause of the accident in suit and (2) was the plaintiff guilty of such negligence, both of which were in the affirmative. Thus, under Louisiana law which makes contributory negligence a complete bar to recovery by a plaintiff, a clear conflict between the general and special verdicts was disclosed. After further instruction to the jury and conference between court and counsel, the trial court, expressly exercising its discretion under F.R.C.P. 49 (b), 28 U.S.C.A., ordered a new trial on its own motion. The reason assigned by the District Court for this action was that there could be no question that there was confusion in the minds of the jury after long deliberation which made it apparent that the real intent was in accord with the general verdict. It is from this order that appeal is sought.

The parties briefed and argued the case on the intrinsic merits, the defendant-appellant claiming that an instructed verdict ought to have been granted, and plaintiff-appellee denied this and contended as well that the discretionary granting of a new trial sua sponte is not generally reviewable, Fairmont Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co., 287 U.S. 474 , 53 S.Ct. 252 , 77 L.Ed. 439 . We do not get that far.

Appeal on such an order cannot be maintained. Appeal must be based upon a final judgment below. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1291 , 1292; Milprint, Inc., v. Donaldson Chocolate Co., 8 Cir., 222 F.2d 898, 902 ; Bass v. Baltimore & O. Terminal R. Co., 7 Cir., 142 F.2d 779 ; Aubertin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 252 F.2d 96 . There is no such judgment here. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1959: 21963: 21968: 11970: 119592026peak 1959 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co., 287 U.S. 474 (1933) 302
Bass v. Baltimore & O. Terminal R. Co., 142 F.2d 779 (7th Cir. 1944) 23
Milprint, Inc. v. Donaldson Chocolate Co., a Corp., 222 F.2d 898 (8th Cir. 1955) 8
Aubertin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 F.2d 96 (5th Cir. 1958) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list