Dunnellon Phosphate Co. v. Crystal River Lumber Co.

Decision Date21 May 1912
Citation58 So. 786,63 Fla. 131
PartiesDUNNELLON PHOSPHATE CO. v. CRYSTAL RIVER LUMBER CO.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied June 11, 1912.

Error to Circuit Court, Marion County; W. S. Bullock, Judge.

Action by the Crystal River Lumber Company against the Dunnellon Phosphate Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Upon writ of error to an order granting a new trial, the only questions to be considered are those involved in such order.

Every presumption is in favor of the correctness of rulings made by the trial court; and this presumption of correctness and regularity attaches and applies with peculiar force to orders granting new trials.

To warrant an appellate court in disturbing an order of the trial court granting a new trial, it must clearly appear either that there has been an abuse of a sound judicial discretion, or that some settled principle of law has been violated.

Where the trial court grants a new trial upon the ground that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, and incorporates in such order his reasons for such ruling, it is with the ruling itself that an appellate court is called upon to deal, and not with the reasons given therefor. If the ruling is correct, it will not be disturbed because the trial court may have given a wrong or insufficient reason for its rendition.

COUNSEL Bisbee & Bedell, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.

R. L Anderson, of Ocala, for defendant in error.

OPINION

SHACKLEFORD, J.

Crystal River Lumber Company, a corporation, brought an action of trover against the Dunnellon Phosphate Company, a corporation, whereby it was sought to recover damages for the conversion of chattels cut from standing trees, which plaintiff claimed to own, on a large body of lands, which are described. The original declaration contained only one count but it was amended, so that it finally contained six counts to which declaration the defendant filed a number of please--how many we are not informed--but by agreement of the respective counsel the case went to trial upon certain specified counts of the declaration and pleas. As one of such pleas was numbered 25, we are warranted in assuming that at least 25 pleas were filed. A trial was had before a jury, which resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant. Whereupon the plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which consisted of 48 grounds, the first 2 of which allege that such verdict is 'contrary to law and the charge of the court,' and 'contrary to the evidence, against the weight of the evidence, and is without sufficient evidence to support it,' while the remaining 46 grounds are based upon the giving of certain instructions at the request of the defendant, and the giving of certain portions of the general charge and the refusal to give certain requested instructions by the plaintiff, and the giving of certain instructions requested by the plaintiff with modifications, instead of as requested. The court made an order granting such motion and awarding a new trial. This order the defendant below has brought here for review by writ of error, in accordance with the provisions of section 1695 of the General Statutes of 1906. The sole point presented for our determination is: Did the trial court err in making this order? See Owens v. Wilson, 58 Fla. 335, 50 So. 674, 138 Am. St. Rep. 117, 19 Ann. Cas. 267, wherein we said, in speaking of a writ of error addressed to the grant of a new trial upon a verdict for the defendant: 'Upon such a writ, unlike one directed to a final judgment, the only questions to be considered are those involved in the order granting a new trial.' It is further true, as we held in Hainlin v. Budge, 56 Fla. 342, 47 So. 825: 'Every presumption is in favor of the correctness of rulings made by the trial court; and this presumption of correctness and regularity attaches and applies with peculiar force to orders granting new trials.' In Chancey v. Williams, 56 Fla. 215, 47 So. 811, we said, 'The power conferred upon us to review the grant of a new trial is a delicate one; and we have heretofore laid down the rules to govern us in its exercise;' and in support thereof we cited the following authorities: Farrell v. Solary, 43 Fla. 124, 31 So. 283; Clary v. Isom, 55 Fla. 384, 45 So. 994; Jones v. Jacksonville Electric Co., 56 Fla. 452, 47 So. 1. We would also refer to the discussion in Reddick v. Joseph, 35 Fla. 65, 16 So. 781; Bishop v. Taylor, 41 Fla. 77, 25 So. 287; Allen v. Lewis, 43 Fla. 301, 31 So. 286; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Wade, 49 Fla. 179, 38 So. 49; Connor v. Elliott, 59 Fla. 227, 52 So. 729; Hobbs v. Cheyney, 62 Fla. ----, 56 So. 554; Zackary v. Georgia, F. & A. Ry. Co., 62 Fla. ---- 56 So. 686. To warrant an appellate court in disturbing an order of the trial court granting a new trial, it must clearly appear either that there has been an abuse of a sound judicial discretion, or that some settled principle of law has been violated. In Nathan v. Thomas, [1] decided here at the present term, we found that a new trial had been granted upon a specified ground of the motion, whereby a settled principle of law had been violated; wherefore we reversed the order. In Philadelphia Underwriters' Ins. Co. of North America v. Bigelow, 48 Fla. 105, 37 So. 210, and Winn v. Coggins, 53 Fla. 327, 42 So. 897, in each of which cases a new trial was granted upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings or verdict, we found, upon examination of the evidence, that there had been an abuse of a sound judicial discretion, and accordingly reversed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Beckwith v. Bailey
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 14 Mayo 1935
    ... ... St. Rep. 117, 19 Ann. Cas. 267; ... Dunnellon Phosphate Co. v. Crystal River Lumber Co., ... 63 Fla ... ...
  • Blitch v. Buchanan
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 12 Noviembre 1930
    ... ... notwithstanding. See Dunnellon Phosphate Co. v. Crystal ... River Lumber Co., 63 Fla ... ...
  • Smith v. Mcewen
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 4 Abril 1935
    ... ... Co., 78 Fla. 362, 82 So. 850; Dunnellon Phosphate ... Co. v. Crystal River Lumber Co., 63 Fla ... ...
  • Phillips v. Lowenstein
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 23 Enero 1926
    ... ... Roberts, 81 So. 475, 77 Fla. 324; Dunnellon ... Phosphate Co. v. Crystal River Lumber Co., 58 So. 786, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT