## Facts

- Coal producers sued a buyer in federal district court for breach of a contract to purchase 17,500 tons of coal at $6.50 per ton, f.o.b. mines, in monthly installments beginning June 1920, seeking $32,417 plus interest.
- The buyer asserted multiple defenses and counterclaimed for $2,000 for alleged damages from the sellers’ failure to deliver as promised.
- The buyer accepted about 6,330 tons but, on December 4, 1920, refused further deliveries; coal prices continued to fall through the contract period.
- After two defense verdicts were reversed and remanded for new trials, the third jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs in the amount of $1.
- The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial; the record reflected the motion and denial but did not state the motion’s grounds in the bill of exceptions.
- On plaintiffs’ appeal—arguing errors focused on jury instructions—the court of appeals reversed, concluding the $1 award was inadequate given the evidence and ordering a new trial.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether that reversal improperly reexamined facts found by a jury.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court of appeals may reverse a judgment and order a new trial on the ground that a jury’s damages award is inadequate where the trial judge denied a new-trial motion and the verdict is supported by evidence.
2. Whether reweighing evidence to set aside a nominal-damages verdict violates the traditional limits on appellate review in jury cases reflected in the Seventh Amendment.
3. Whether a court of appeals may notice “plain error” not assigned, and whether omission of the grounds for a new-trial motion from the bill of exceptions precludes review.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the district court’s judgment on the $1 verdict.
- Federal appellate courts may not review, as a matter of law, a trial court’s grant or denial of a new trial when the challenge turns on factual questions such as the weight of the evidence or adequacy of damages.
- A nominal-damages verdict does not, by itself, establish legal error where liability was disputed and the trial judge declined to order a new trial.
- A court of appeals may notice plain error if its rules allow, even if not assigned.
- A bill of exceptions is not fatally defective for omitting the grounds of a new-trial motion where those grounds otherwise appear in the record.
- An exception to jury instructions taken after the jury retires is untimely.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review in jury cases distinguishes reviewable errors of law from nonreviewable reexamination of fact; adequacy of damages is ordinarily a factual matter for the jury and trial judge.
- The rule that the Supreme Court will not review a federal trial court’s ruling on a new-trial motion for “error of fact” applies equally to federal courts of appeals.
- When liability is contested, a verdict awarding only nominal damages does not necessarily show inconsistency with the jury’s duty to assess damages, and a trial judge’s denial of a new trial cannot be treated as legal error solely because an appellate court would have awarded more.
- “Plain error” review may be exercised under applicable appellate rules even absent a specific assignment of error.
- Preservation rules matter: objections to jury instructions must be timely to support appellate relief.

## Conclusion

The Court held that federal courts of appeals may not set aside a jury verdict and a trial judge’s denial of a new trial merely because the appellate court views the damages as inadequate, reaffirming that factual reassessment of jury verdicts is largely committed to the trial court rather than appellate review.


Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co., 287 U.S. 474 (1933)