General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Judge of Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County

• Decision Date: 15 September 1931
• Citation: 136 So. 621,102 Fla. 924
• Parties: GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION et al. v. JUDGE OF CIRCUIT COURT, ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

136 So. 621

102 Fla. 924

GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION et al. v. JUDGE OF CIRCUIT COURT, ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY.

Florida Supreme Court

September 15, 1931

En Banc.

Petition by the General Motors Acceptance Corporation and others for writ of certiorari to be directed to the Judge of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in and for Dade County.

Writ Denied.

Syllabus by the Court.

SYLLABUS

Where the verdict was in favor of the plaintiff and was as follows 'We, the jury, find the right of property to be in the plaintiff'--we hold that this verdict is equivalent to the simple finding of a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Where the intent of the jury in rendering the verdict may fairly and with certainty be gleaned from the words used and no objection appears to have been made to the form of the verdict when the same was presented to the court, the form thereof is waived.

This was a trial under a claim affidavit and in such case no pleadings are required. The burden is upon the claimant to show title and that it has a right to present possession of the property and such title and right to present possession is not proven by offering in evidence an original conditional sales contract with oral evidence that such contract was purchased by the claimant and that it is owner and holder of that paper. The evidence must go farther and show that the purchaser under that contract has not perfected his title and right of possession by payment of the purchase price.

The court will not issue a writ of certiorari where to do so would be vain and useless and result in no change in the disposition of the cause.

COUNSEL S. Grover Morrow, of Miami, for petitioners.

OPINION

BUFORD C.J.

This case comes to us on petition for certiorari to be directed to the circuit court of the Eleventh judicial circuit of Florida, Dade county.

John J Quinn Company sued John C. Whippo et al. in the civil court of record, Dade County. The plaintiff sued out attachment which was levied on an automobile. General Motors Acceptance Corporation filed claim affidavit and bond under the provisions of section 3430, Rev. Gen. St. 1920, section 5283 Comp. Gen. Laws 1927. The issue presented by the claim affidavit came on to be tried under the provisions of section 2832, Rev. Gen. St. 1920, section 4519, Comp. Gen. Laws 1927. The verdict was in favor of the plaintiff, and was as follows: 'We, the jury, find the right of property to be in the plaintiff.' We hold that this verdict is equivalent to the simple finding of a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, as was held to be all that was essential in the case of Geiger v. Henry, 44 Fla. 208, 32 So. 874.

In the case of Valdosta Mercantile Company v. White, 56 Fla. 704, 47 So. 961, a verdict like that here under consideration was criticised adversely by this court, but the court did not in that case hold that the verdict would not sustain the judgment entered, but simply held that the verdict was not in proper form. We think that, as was recognized in that case, the intent of the jury in rendering the verdict may fairly and with certainty be gleaned from the words used, and that, as no objection appears to have been made to the form of verdict when the same was presented to the court, the form thereof was waived.

In this case the officer levying the writ as is alleged in the condition of the bond given by the claimant fixed the value of the property at $1,800. There was no evidence shown by the record submitted at the trial as to the value of the property, and therefore the rule as stated in Geiger v. Henry, supra, applied.

...