Greenblatt v. J.R. Bissell Dry Goods Co.
| Decision Date | 25 January 1923 |
| Citation | 95 So. 302,85 Fla. 83 |
| Parties | GREENBLATT v. J. R. BISSELL DRY GOODS CO. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Court of Record, Escambia County; C. Moreno Jones, Judge.
Action by the J. R. Bissell Dry Goods Company against E. Greenblatt. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Where charge directing verdict duly excepted to when given, motion for new trial and ruling thereon not necessary. A motion for new trial and a ruling thereon, with an exception duly taken are necessary to question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict that has been found, but such a motion is not essential in presenting to the appellate court an assignment of error on a charge directing a verdict, where the charge directing the verdict is duly excepted to when given, and such charge and the exception thereto are properly authenticated to the appellate court.
Not error to direct verdict where evidence is legally 'insufficient to support verdict' for opposite party. Where the manifest weight and probative force of the evidence clearly requires a verdict for one party, then the evidence is legally insufficient to support a verdict for the opposite party in the particular issue, within the meaning of the statute (section 2696, Rev. Gen. St. 1920), and the court will not be held in error for directing an appropriate verdict, no error in the case intervening to make the directed verdict erroneous or improper.
COUNSEL John P. Stokes and Leon N. Lischkoff, both of Pensacola, for plaintiff in error.
Watson & Pasco, of Pensacola, for defendant in error.
In an action of assumpsit for goods sold and delivered, there was judgment for the plaintiff on a directed verdict.
On writ of error, it is contended that, as the evidence was conflicting on a material issue as to whether the goods were purchased in March, 1920, when the defendant was a member of a certain partnership, or in July, 1920, after the defendant had retired from the partnership, the matter should have been submitted to the jury, and that it was error to direct a verdict for the plaintiff.
A motion for new trial and a ruling thereon, with an exception duly taken, are necessary to question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict that has been found, but such a motion is not essential in presenting to the appellate court an assignment of error on a charge directing a verdict, where the charge directing the verdict is duly excepted to when given, and such charge and the exception thereto are properly authenticated to the appellate court. See section 2811, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920; Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Peters, 77 Fla. 411, text 421, 83 So. 559.
While there is testimony that the goods were bought in July, which if not controverted, might sustain a verdict for the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial