Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Bell v. Brown

128 F.2d 317

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1942-05-11
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. The evidence in this case, as we read the record, preponderates strongly against appellant. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that there was enough to require that the case go to the jury; under the well-established rule that if there is evidence upon which, when construed most favorably to the person upon whom the onus of proof is imposed, reasonable and fair-minded men, properly instructed as to the law, could find a verdict in his favor, then the question is not one of law but of fact to be settled by the jury.1 Reversed. Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U.S. 90, 95, 50 S.Ct. 231, 74 L.Ed. 720; Jackson v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Bell v. Brown. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
BELL v. BROWN,128 F.2d 317(D.C. Cir. 1942)
BELL v. BROWN.
No. 7988.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Decided May 11, 1942.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Action between Ezekiel E. Bell and Bryant C. Brown. From the judgment, Ezekiel E. Bell appeals.

Reversed.
Mr. William A. Gallagher, of Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. William B. O'Connell and Dennis Collins, both of Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Howard Boyd, of Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. Edmund L. Jones and Joseph J. Cotter, both of Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and MILLER and RUTLEDGE, Associate Justices.
PER CURIAM.
The evidence in this case, as we read the record, preponderates strongly against appellant. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that there was enough to require that the case go to the jury; under the well-established rule that if there is evidence upon which, when construed most favorably to the person upon whom the onus of proof is imposed, reasonable and fair-minded men, properly instructed as to the law, could find a verdict in his favor, then the question is not one of law but of fact to be settled by the jury.1

Reversed.Page 318
  1. Gunning v. Cooley,281 U.S. 90,95,50 S.Ct. 231,74 L.Ed. 720; Jackson v. Capital Transit Co.,69 App.D.C. 147,99 F.2d 380, and cases there cited. ↩