CITY OF DETROIT v. JULIEN

CITY OF DETROIT v. JULIEN. Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. October 15, 1927. No. 4964. Trial <@=420 — Motion for directed verdict at close of plaintiff’s evidence is waived by in- . troducing evidence if not renewed. Motion for directed verdict at close of plaintiff’s evidence is waived by introduction of evidence if not renewed. In Error to the District Court of the United States ■ for the Eastern District of Michigan; D. C. West.ehhaver, Judge. Action at law by Theophile Julien against the City of Detroit Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed. Hazen J. Payette, of Detroit, Mich. (Chas P. O’Neil, James S. Shields, and Peter J. Drexelius, all of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for plaintiff in error. Bresnahan & Groefsema, of Detroit, Mich., for defendant in error. Before DENISON and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges, and RAYMOND, District Judge. [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Defendant’s motion to direct, made, at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, was waived by putting in proof without renewal of the motion; and, in any event, there was substantial evidence to support the verdict. The doctors’ evidence was, in substance, an expression of expert opinion as to the probability of permanence in the injury. A deduction of an unknown amount on account of pain and suffering must be made from the verdict; and hence no one can say that so much as was compensation for lack of earning power was excessive. Let the mandate issue forthwith.