United States Supreme Court
293 U.S. 474 (1935)
The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant for the negligent operation of an automobile. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $500. The plaintiff moved for a new trial on the grounds that the damages were inadequate. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a new trial unless the defendant would consent to an increase of the damages to $1,500. The plaintiff’s consent to this condition was not requested, required, or given. The defendant nonetheless agreed to the increase and the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was accordingly denied. The plaintiff appealed to the court of appeals and the judgment was reversed. The court of appeals held that the conditional order violated the Seventh Amendment. The defendant appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Sutherland, J.)
Dissent (Stone, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 238,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,200 briefs, keyed to 189 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.