TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Treat Manufacturing Co. v. Standard Steel & Iron Co.

Treat Manufacturing Company v. Standard Steel and Iron Company

Treat Mfg. Co. v. Standard Steel & Iron Co., 157 U.S. 674 (1895)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
April 8, 1895
Docket
No. 353
Judges
The Chief Justice:
Citations
157 U.S. 67415 S. Ct. 71839 L. Ed. 8531895 U.S. LEXIS 2220
Syllabus
Where the trial judge is satisfied upon the evidence that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, and that a verdict, if rendered for plaintiff, must be set aside, the court may instruct the jury to find for.the defendant, and in such case no constitutional question arises; but if the court errs as matter of law in so doing, the remedy lies in a review in the appropriate court.
Summary
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. Motion to dismiss. The case is stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion

The Chief Justice:

This was an action of trespass on the case. At the conclusion of the trial defendants moved the court to charge the jury to find the issues for defendants, which motion was granted, and the jury was directed, upon the whole case, to return a verdict for defendants, plaintiff duly excepting. Thereupon the jury returned a verdict accordingly ; plaintiff moved for a'new trial, which was denied, *675 and judgment was given against plaintiff on the verdict. This judgment was rendered December 3, 1890. The writ of error from this court was brought November 24, 1891. The only ground relied on to sustain the jurisdiction of this court is that the case “ involves the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States;” because plaintiff in error was deprived of the right of trial by jury. But it is well settled that where the trial judge is satisfied upon the evidence that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, and that a verdict, if rendered for plaintiff, must be set aside, the court may instruct the jury to find for the defendant.

Grand Chute v. Winegar, 15 Wall. 355 ;

Marion County v. Clark, 91 U. S. 278 ;

Herbert v. Butler, 97 U. S. 319 .

If the court errs as matter of law in so doing, the remedy lies in a review in the appropriate court.

Writ of error dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1897: 11899: 11901: 11905: 21906: 11907: 11921: 11923: 118972026peak 1905 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. W. S. Forbes & Co. v. Southern Cotton Oil Co.108 S.E. 15 (Va. 1921)
  2. Woodward v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.145 F. 577 (8th Cir. 1906)
  3. Busby v. Anderson Water, Light & Power Co.136 F. 156 (4th Cir. 1905)
  4. Wagner Electric Manufacturing Co. v. Lyndon262 U.S. 226 (1923)
  5. Gunn v. Union Railroad Company62 A. 118 (R.I. 1905)
  6. Detroit Crude-Oil Co. v. Grable94 F. 73 (6th Cir. 1899)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Welton v. Missouri, 91 U.S. 275 (1876) 399
Herbert v. Butler, 97 U.S. 319 (1878) 43
Grand Chute v. Winegar, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 355 (1873) 27

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