Melville Fuller

Name: Louisville v. Woodson — Opinion of the Court
Author: Melville Fuller

Louisville v. Woodson — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Louisville v. Woodson — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Melville Fuller. It explores elements such as verdict, jury and plaintiff.

Quotes from Louisville v. Woodson — Opinion of the Court (Melville Fuller)

Melville Fuller, Louisville v. Woodson — Opinion of the Court

“ What are called 'mixed questions,' consisting of both law and fact as questions in respect to the degree of care, skill, diligence, etc., required by law, in particular cases are to be submitted to the jury, under proper instructions from the court as to the rules and principles of law by which they are to be governed in their determination of the case. The truth of the facts and circumstances offered in evidence in support of the allegations on the record must be determined by the jury. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Melville Fuller, Louisville v. Woodson — Opinion of the Court

“ In such case the practice of a demurrer to the evidence can be resorted to, or a motion to exclude the evidence from the jury, or to instruct them that the plaintiff cannot recover, which motions are in the nature of demurrers to evidence, though less technical, and have in many of the states superseded the ancient practice of a demurrer to evidence. Parks v. Ross, 11 How. 362; Schuchardt v. Allens, 1 Wall. 359. Such a motion, like the demurrer to evidence, admits not only what the testimony proves, but what it tends to prove. The ultimate facts, in other words, are admitted. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Melville Fuller, Louisville v. Woodson — Opinion of the Court

“ From these decisions it is clear that in Tennessee, as elsewhere, although the jury are the judges of the facts, yet the judge has power to set aside the verdict when, in his judgment, it is against the weight of the evidence, but that that supervisory power cannot be exercised under the statute when the triers of the facts have three times determined them the same way. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Melville Fuller, Louisville v. Woodson — Opinion of the Court

“ Tested by this rule, whenever the statute is applied, it must be upon the assumption that, although the court would have found a different verdict because of the weakness of the evidence, yet there was some evidence tending to establish the cause of action. Courts rarely grant a new trial after two verdicts upon the facts in favor of the same party, except for error of law ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Melville Fuller, Louisville v. Woodson — Opinion of the Court

“ It is the settled law of this court that 'when the evidence given at the trial, with all the inferences that the jury could justifiably draw from it, is insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff, so that such a verdict, if returned, must be set aside,' and court is not bound to submit the case to the jury, but may direct a verdict for the defendant, (Randall v. Railroad Co., 109 U.S. 478, 482, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 322; Gunther v. Insurance Co., 134 U.S. --, ante, 448;) ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Melville Fuller, Louisville v. Woodson — Opinion of the Court

“ The rights of parties must be decided according to the established law of the land as declared by the legislature, or expounded by the courts, and not according to what the jury, in their own opinion, may suppose the law is, or ought to be ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Melville Fuller, Louisville v. Woodson — Opinion of the Court

“ The supreme court of Tennessee affirmed the judgment in these words: 'This cause was heard upon the transcript of the record from the circuit court of Hay wood county, and the court adjudges that there is no evidence to support the verdict of the jury, but the defendant having obtained three verdicts of separate juries upon different trials, two of which have been heretofore set aside by the circuit judge ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Melville Fuller, Louisville v. Woodson — Opinion of the Court

“ Railroad Co. v. Patterson, 93 Ill. 290; Carmichael v. Geary, 27 Ind. 362; Boyce v. Smith's Adm'r, 16 Mo. 317; Wildy v. Bonney's Lessee, 35 Miss. 77; Rains v. Hood, 23 Tex. 555; Watterson v. Moore, 23 W. Va. ”

Melville Fuller

Summary

Quotes from Louisville v. Woodson — Opinion of the Court (Melville Fuller)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature