Cameron & Barkley Co. v. Law-engle Co.

• Decision Date: 18 November 1929
• Parties: CAMERON & BARKLEY CO. v. LAW-ENGLE CO.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

124 So. 814

98 Fla. 920

CAMERON & BARKLEY CO. v. LAW-ENGLE CO.

Florida Supreme Court

November 18, 1929

Commissioners' Decision.

Error to Circuit Court, Pinellas County; O. L. Dayton, Judge.

Action by the Cameron & Barkley Company against Chas. H. Law Company. Plaintiff recovered judgment, and on execution thereon levied on certain personal property, and the Law-Engle Company interposed a claim. Judgment for claimant and plaintiff brings error.

Reversed for new trial.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

In trying rights of property between plaintiff in execution and claimant, burden of proof is on claimant; claimant must recover against plaintiff in execution on strength of own title and right to possession (Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, §§ 4517-4521). In trying the rights of property as between a plaintiff in execution and a claimant, under sections 4517 to 4521, inclusive, Compiled General Laws of Florida 1927, the burden of proof is upon the claimant, who must recover, if at all, upon the strength of his own title and right to possession of the property claimed.

Verdict should not be directed on ground of preponderance of evidence, where there is substantial evidence supporting verdict for other party (Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, § 4363). Where there is some substantial evidence to support a verdict for one party, a verdict for the other party should not be directed by the court on the ground that a preponderance of the evidence is favorable to the movant.

If evidence is conflicting, admits of different reasonable inferences, or tends to prove issue, it should be submitted to jury (Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, § 4363). If the evidence is conflicting or will admit of different reasonable inferences or if there is evidence tending to prove the issue, it should be submitted to the jury as a question of fact to be determined by them, and not taken from the jury and passed upon by the court as a question of law.

Verdict should never be directed unless in no view of evidence could verdict for other party be sustained; power of directing verdict should be cautiously exercised (Comp. Gen. Laws 1927 § 4363). The judge should never direct a verdict for one party unless the evidence is such that no view which the jury may lawfully take of it favorable to the other party can be sustained, nor should a motion for directed verdict be granted where the evidence is conflicting or will admit of different reasonable inferences, or if there is evidence tending to prove the issue. Under our jurisprudence, the matter of directing a verdict, as authorized by section 2696, Revised General Statutes of Florida 1920 (Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, § 4363), is a delicate one and should be cautiously exercised.

If after all the evidence of the parties shall have been submitted, it be apparent to the judge that no sufficient evidence has been submitted upon which the jury could legally find a verdict for one party, the judge may direct the jury to find a verdict for the opposite party.

Verdict should not be directed for one claimant, where evidence admits of difference of opinion between reasonable men whether one claim was superior to other (Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, §§ 4363, 4517-4521). A verdict should not be directed in favor of one claimant, where there is evidence in the case which will admit of a difference of opinion between reasonable men as to whether or not the claim of one party was superior to the other.

COUNSEL

McKay, Withers & Ramsey, of Tampa, for plaintiff in error.

H. R. Williams, of St. Petersburg, for defendant in error.

OPINION

ANDREWS C.

Plaintiff in error obtained a judgment in the circuit court of Pinellas county against Chas H. Law Company of Clearwater, Fla., upon the latter's indorsement of a promissory note. Upon this judgment an execution was issued and placed in the hands of the sheriff of Alachua county, who levied upon certain personal property located at Gainesville. The Law-Engle Company, as claimant (defendant in error here), filed its claim with the sheriff of Alachua county for the property so levied upon, furnishing a claim bond as required by statute. On May 9, 1928, a trial was had in Pinellas county as to the rights of property, and at the conclusion of testimony the trial court upon motion of the claimant directed the jury to return a verdict for the claimant, Law-Engle Company. A motion for new trial was denied and final judgment entered for claimant.

The only assignment of error argued is that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of claimant and entering judgment thereon.

Section 4517 to 4521, inclusive, Compiled General Laws of Florida 1927, provides the procedure to be followed in trying the rights of property as between the plaintiff in execution and a claimant. Volusia County Bank v. Bigelow, 45 Fla. 638, 33 So. 704.

'In claim proceedings under the statute, the burden of proof is upon the claimant, who must recover upon the strength of his own title and right to possession of the property claimed.' Cohen v. Harris, 61 Fla. 137, 54 So. 905.

Where there is some substantial evidence to support a verdict for one party, a verdict for the other party should not be directed by the court on the ground that a preponderance of the evidence is favorable to the movant. Florida E. C. R. Co. v. Hayes, 66 Fla. 589, 62 So. 274.

'If the evidence is conflicting or will admit of different reasonable inferences, or if there is evidence tending to prove the issue, it should be submitted to the jury as a question of fact to be determined by them, and not taken from the jury and passed upon by the court as a question of law.' Williams v. Sherry, 94 Fla. 998, 114 So. 849, 850. See also Davis v. Ivey, 93 Fla. 387, 112 So. 264.

In the case of Branford State Bank v. Howell Co., 88 Fla. 493, 102 So. 649, this court said:

'The judge should never direct a verdict for one party unless the evidence is such that no view which the jury may lawfully take of it favorable to the other party can be sustained, nor should a motion for directed verdict be granted where the evidence is conflicting or will admit of different reasonable inferences, or if there is evidence tending to prove the issue. Under our jurisprudence the matter of directing a verdict as authorized by section 2696, Revised General Statutes of Florida 1920, is a delicate one and should be cautiously exercised.'

The statute referred to now constitutes section 4363, Compiled General Laws of Florida 1927, and that portion of said section having reference to directing verdicts provides that if, after all...