BRUCE CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. UNITED STATES

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 16003.

Attorney(S)

Walter J. Merrill, Anniston, Ala., for appellants. John W. Vardaman, Anniston, Ala., for appellee. Fred M. Milligan, Chattanooga, Tenn., on the brief.

Judges

Joseph Chappell Hutcheson
John Robert Brown

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This case arises under the Miller Act, brought by subcontractors against a contractor engaged in a contract with the United States for construction work at Fort McClellan. The subcontractors sued for the balance due for labor performed. The matter was submitted to a jury after a full trial, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $15,014.89. No objections or exceptions were made during the trial, and the only issue raised on appeal was that the verdict was allegedly excessive.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the jury verdict awarding $15,014.89 to the subcontractors was excessive as a matter of law.
Whether the court should reform the verdict to reduce the amount to the appellants' claimed maximum of $13,746.25.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

The appellants contended that the verdict was excessive and that the maximum amount that should have been awarded was $13,746.25.
They sought a reduction of the verdict to this amount on appeal.

Appellee's Arguments

The appellee argued that the verdict should have been even greater than the amount awarded.
They maintained that the appellants’ attack on the verdict was unsupported by the evidence.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court emphasized that no objections, exceptions, or motions for directed verdict were made during the trial. Because of this procedural posture, the appellants’ attempt to challenge the verdict as excessive effectively amounted to asking the court to reweigh the evidence and determine the amount owed independently. The court declined to do so, stating that it should not and cannot reassess the evidence to reduce the verdict. The absence of trial objections limited the scope of appellate review, leading the court to conclude that the verdict was not excessive as a matter of law.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision was to affirm the judgment in favor of the appellee for $15,014.89. The direct effect of this decision is to uphold the jury’s verdict without modification. No new precedent was established, and the ruling reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not reweigh evidence or reduce verdicts on appeal absent proper trial objections or motions.

Show full summary ...

BRUCE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION et al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES to the use of W.J. EVERHART and Oli

PER CURIAM.

Brought under the Miller Act by the subcontractors against the contractor under a contract with the United States for the construction, alteration, or repair of a public building or public work of the United States at Fort McClellan, the suit was for the balance due them for labor performed.

40 U.S.C.A. §§ 270a, 270b, 270c and 270d.

Submitted to a jury after a full trial on a charge, in respect of which no request was made, no exception taken, there was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $15,014.89, as to which no error is assigned except that the verdict is excessive.

Complaining that the maximum verdict which should have been rendered was $13,746.25, appellant is here tithing mint, anise and cummin and claiming that to the extent that the verdict exceeded this sum it was excessive and should be reformed.

Appellee, urging upon us that the verdict should have been an even greater sum, joining issue with appellants, insists that the attack upon verdict and judgment is without basis in the evidence.

We need not, indeed we should not, undertake to assess or weigh these respective claims since we are of the clear opinion that the verdict was not excessive as a matter of law. Coming here on a record containing not a single objection or exception in the course of the trial and no motion for directed verdict, appellants, in the guise of attacking the verdict as excessive, in effect ask us to weigh the evidence and determine for ourselves the amount owed to appellee.

We should not, indeed we cannot do this. The judgment is affirmed.