Acosta v. Gingles

• Decision Date: 09 June 1913
• Citation: 65 Fla. 507,62 So. 582
• Parties: ACOSTA v. GINGLES et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

62 So. 582

65 Fla. 507

ACOSTA v. GINGLES et al.

Florida Supreme Court

June 9, 1913

Error to Circuit Court, Escambia County; J. Emmet Wolfe, Judge.

Ejectment by Sallie Acosta against Mary F. Gingles and others. From an order granting a new trial after verdict for plaintiff, she brings error. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

A motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of trial courts; and, where a trial court grants such a motion, the action in doing so it presumed to be in accordance with the justice and merits of the case, unless the contrary appears by the record.

An order of the trial court granting a new trial should not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless it appears affirmatively from the record that there has been an abuse of a sound judicial discretion, or that some settled principle of law has been violated.

When the trial court grants a motion for new trial, and one of the grounds of the motion is that the verdict is not supported by the weight of the evidence, and it does not appear upon what ground the motion was granted, and there is conflicting testimony upon a material issue in the cause, the appellate court will not reverse the order, where there is no palpable preponderance of evidence in favor of the verdict.

Where it does not appear that the transcript contains all the evidence adduced at the trial, an order granting a new trial without stating on what ground it is granted, will not be reversed by the appellate court, when one or more of the grounds of the motion question the sufficiency of the probative force of the evidence.

COUNSEL R. P. Reese, of Pensacola, for plaintiff in error.

Reeves Watson & Pasco, of Pensacola, for defendants in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

A writ of error was taken under the statute from an order granting a new trial in an action of ejectment, wherein the verdict was for the plaintiff. The only question to be considered is the propriety of the order granting the motion of the defendants for a new trial. There are 10 grounds of the motion asserting in varying terms that the verdict is not supported by the evidence, and is contrary to the charge of the court, and that the court erred in charges given and in not directing a verdict for the defendants.

A motion for new trial is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of trial courts; and, where a trial court grants such a motion, the action in doing so is presumed to be in accordance with the justice and merits of the case, unless the contrary appears by the record. An...