opinion: HOTEL McALLISTER v. COBURN.
  (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
  March 17, 1927.)
  No. 4848.
  1. Appeal and error @=>237(5) — Without motion to direct verdict, assignments that verdict is contrary to evidence, excessive, and conflicts with instructions, present nothing for review.
  In absence of motion to .direct verdict, assignments of error that verdict was contrary to evidence, that damages fixed thereby were excessive, and that it contravened instructions, present nothing for review, though all the evidence is brought up in record.
  2. Courts @=>405(2) — Objection that jurisdiction of District Court by diversity of citizenship is not shown, not raised in District Court, is settled by verdict.
  Objection that record does not show jurisdiction in the District Court by diversity of citizenship", not raised in District Court, will not be considered by Circuit Court of Appeals, and is settled by verdict. ,
  3. Courts @=>322(2) — Allegation In declaration of diversity of citizenship Is not denied by plea of not guilty.
  Under Florida practice, allegation in declaration of diversity of citizenship is not denied by plea of not guilty, but goes merely to a denial of the wrongful act on which action for false imprisonment is based.
  In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida; William I. Grubb, Judge.
  Action by George H. Cobum against the Hotel McAllister. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
  Affirmed.
  St. Clair Adams, of New Orleans, La., and John C. Gramling, of Miami, Fla. (Gramling & Flowers, of Miami, Fla., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
  John S. Benz .and E. B. Kurtz, both of Miami, Fla. (Kurtz & Reed and Shutts & Bowen, all of Miami, Fla., on the brief), for defendant in error.
  Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
  FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
  Defendant in error, plaintiff below, brought suit to recover damages for false imprisonment, to which the defendant filed a plea of not guilty. The case was tried to a jury, and resulted in a'verdict for $3,500, on which judgment was entered.
  The only errors assigned are as follows: (1) the verdict is contrary to the evidence; (2) the damages fixed by said verdict are excessive; (3) the verdict is in contravention with the instructions of the court. The errors assigned present nothing for review in this court. The entire evidence, apparently, is brought up in the record; but, as there was no motion to direct a verdict, we are not at liberty to examine it, with the view of reversing the judgment.
  Plaintiff in error also suggests that the record does not show jurisdiction in the District Court by diversity of citizenship. This question was not raised in the District Court. The declaration alleges that the plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the state of New Jersey and defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Florida. We do not understand that, under the practice in Florida, this averment is denied by a plea of not guilty, which goes merely to a denial of the wrongful act upon which' the action is based. Varnes v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 80 Fla. 624, 86 So. 433. Furthermore, we think this question is also settled by the verdict.
  Affirmed.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
  
  Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "other". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: medical clinics, health organizations, nursing homes, medical doctors, medical labs, or other private health care facilities private attorney or law firm media - including magazines, newspapers, radio & TV stations and networks, cable TV, news organizations school - for profit private educational enterprise (including business and trade schools) housing, car, or durable goods rental or lease entertainment: amusement parks, race tracks, for profit camps, record companies, movie theaters and producers, ski resorts, hotels, restaurants, etc. information processing consulting security and/or maintenance service other service (including accounting) other (including a business pension fund) unclear