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.
The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER.
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,
Page 157 U. S. 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, 94 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.