Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co.
United States Supreme Court
330 U.S. 212, 67 S.Ct. 752 (1947)
Facts
Cone (plaintiff) sued West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. (Pulp) (defendant) for $25,000 in South Carolina state court for trespassing and cutting wood on land owned by Cone. Pulp had the case removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Pulp answered that Cone did not own or possess the land at issue. Cone had the burden of proving ownership under South Carolina law. At the close of evidence, Pulp moved the court to enter a directed verdict on the ground that Cone did not make the requisite showing of ownership. The district court denied the motion, and the jury awarded Cone $15,000. After final judgment was entered, Pulp filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of new evidence, which was denied. Pulp did not file a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (j.n.o.v.). On appeal, the court of appeals concluded that some of the evidence used by Cone to prove ownership should have been excluded. On that basis, the court of appeals concluded there was not enough evidence to submit the questions of title and possession to the jury. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case to the district court with direction that judgment be entered for Pulp. Cone petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari, which was granted.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Black, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 708,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
