This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Marsh (P) sued Illinois Cent. R. (D) for a personal injury to have been caused by negligent maintenance of a switching track and the apron covering the coupling between the engine and tender. At the conclusion of evidence, D moved for an instructed verdict. That was denied. P got the verdict and D moved for a judgment n.o.v. or for a new trial. The judge held that the evidence was overwhelmingly against P and that the motion for the judgment n.o.v. was granted and that a new trial was not warranted. P appealed and D appealed for the refusal of the new trial.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.