Hilkmeyer v. Latin Am. Air Cargo Expediters, Inc.
Citation | 94 So.2d 821 |
Parties | A. K. HILKMEYER, d/b/a Dixie Hatcheries, Petitioner, v. LATIN AMERICAN AIR CARGO EXPEDITERS, Inc., a Florida corporation, Respondent. |
Decision Date | 24 April 1957 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Shutts, Bowen, Simmons, Prevatt & Julian, Miami, for petitioner.
Abe Schonfeld, Miami Beach, for respondent.
The case arises on a petition for certiorari to review a circuit court affirmance of a civil court of record judgment, wherein the civil court of record judge set aside a jury verdict upon a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto by the defendant, where there was also pending a reserved ruling on a motion by defendant for a directed verdict. The trial court set aside the jury verdict because 'the evidence adduced at the trial showed that the defendant did not make a direct contract to pay for the goods involved, but made only a guarantee.' 1
In this case the labels are not important and the court will consider the situation as the various elements actually functioned. The trial judge reserved his ruling on a motion by defendant for a directed verdict made at the close of all the evidence presented by both sides, and when he granted defendant's mislabeled motion for 'verdict non obstante veredicto' after verdict by the jury for plaintiff, the situation was actually that contemplated by Rule 2.7(b), 1954 Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A.:
The circumstances of this case are that A. K. Hillkemeyer, doing business as Dixie Hatcheries, petitioner here, plaintiff below (hereinafter called plaintiff) sued Latin America Air Cargo Expediters, Inc., respondent here, defendant below (hereinafter called defendant) for $2,600 which represented the sale price of a shipment of baby chickens. The ultimate purchaser of the chickens in South America had previously dealt with plaintiff through a transshipping agent, who paid for the chickens under a C.O.D. arrangement; and through defendant, who operated at that time under an arrangement not revealed in the record. Defendant is a transshipping agent, who in this instance received shipments over local air lines from the plaintiff and arranged for transferring the shippments to overseas air lines. Plaintiff claims that defendant entered into an oral agreement to directly assume the entire responsibility of paying him for this particular shipment. The defendant claims that it did not directly assume liability, but only accepted the goods for transshipment and agreed to operate as a paying agent for the ultimate purchaser. Plaintiff has made no attempt to recover from the ultimate purchaser.
This case must be examined and disposed of under rules developed by the Court of govern 'common law' certiorari. 2 On this subject we said in Nation v. State, 1945, 155 Fla. 858, 22 So.2d 219:
(Emphasis supplied.)
The writ of certiorari is issuable or not in the sound judicial discretion of the Supreme Court. Janet Realty Corp. v. Hoffman's, Inc., 1943, 154 Fla. 144, 17 So.2d 114. Although this case presents a close question it involves a serious enough departure from the essential requirements of law to warrant a favorable exercise of our discretion.
The considerations which would authorize a trial judge to direct a verdict are the same as those involved in a reserved motion for a directed verdict under Rule 2.7(b). Cr. Marsh v. Illinois Central R. Co., 5 Cir., 1949, 175 F.2d 498. A great variety of situations have brought forth numerous formulas for providing standards of proof for submission of evidence to the jury. The Supreme Court of the United States has said: Galloway v. United States, 1943, 319 U.S. 372, 395, 63 S.Ct. 1077, 1089, 87 L.Ed. 1458.
This Court's views have recently been recorded:
Katz v. Bear, Fla. 1951, 52 So.2d 903, 904.
See for example, Oppenheimer v. Werner, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 870; Chaney v. Headley, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 297; Bryan v. Loftin, Fla.1951, 51 So.2d 724; Mullis v. City of Miama, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 174. See also Sec. 54.17, Florida Statutes 1955, F.S.A.
The most recent expression of this Court on the general subject is found in New Deal Cab Co. v. Stubbs, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 614, 615. There we said:
(Emphasis supplied.)
We have re-examined the above quoted language in that case and the authorities cited. It was not necessary to the determination of the cause and was therefore obiter dicta. The underscored language correctly states the conditions under which a new trial may be properly awarded but the language which follows is used too loosely. It is important to make a distinction between situations where a trial judge can properly direct a verdict and situations where he can properly grant a new trial. 'The considerations and legal principles that guide the judicial discretion in directing a verdict and in granting a new trial on the evidence are not the same.' Gravette v. Turner, 1919, 77 Fla. 311, 81 So. 476, 477; Anderson v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 1917, 73 Fla. 432, 74 So. 975, L.R.A.1917E, 715; Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Hayes, 1914, 66 Fla. 589, 64 So. 274. The reasons for and a clear exposition of the distinctions appear extensively presented in Gravette v. Turner, supra, one of the cases cited as authority in the New Deal Cab Co. case. We clearly said in the Gravette case that where there was substantial evidence tending to prove the issue, it 'should have been submitted to the jury for their finding on the facts, and not taken from them to be passed upon by the judge as a question of law.' 77 Fla. 317, 81 So. 478. We also said.
'Even though a verdict should not be directed on the evidence in deference to the organic right to a jury trial and to the statute regulating the subject, yet if on motion for a new trial 'where there is conflict in the testimony, it is within the province and power of the court to set aside a verdict which does not reach a substantially just conclusion in cases where the conflicts are of such character and the circumstances of such nature as to give just ground for the belief that the jury acted through prejudice, passion, mistake or any other cause which should not properly control them. This power exists in the court. In exercising it the court does not encroach upon the province of the jury, for the reason that it does conclusively settle facts in the form of a verdict, but only gives another jury the opportunity of so doing, and of correcting what appears to be a mistake.'' 77 Fla....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mace v. M&T Bank
...DCA 2017). Language which is not necessary to the determination of the issue before the court is dicta. Hilkmeyer v. Latin Am. Air Cargo Expediters, Inc., 94 So. 2d 821, 825 (Fla. 1957) ; see State v. Yule, 905 So. 2d 251, 259 n.10 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (Canady, J., concurring specially) ("A h......
-
Olin's, Inc. v. Avis Rental Car System of Fla., Inc.
...merit and therefore the trial judge should not have directed such verdict. The Supreme Court of Florida, in Hilkmeyer v. Latin American Air Cargo Expediters, Fla.1957, 94 So.2d 821, stated at page 'This Court's views have recently been recorded: 'Power to direct a verdict should be cautious......
-
6551 Collins Ave. Corp. v. Millen
...239, 176 So. 98; Okeechobee Co., for Use and Benefit of Hamrick v. Norton, 1942, 149 Fla. 651, 6 So.2d 632; Hilkmeyer v. Latin American Air Cargo Expediters, Fla.1957, 94 So.2d 821. Thus, Rule 2.7(b) introduced an entirely new concept into our trial practice. In effect, it conferred upon th......
-
Kovaleski v. State
...recanted that allegation." That statement is contrary to our holding in Washington. It is also dicta. Hilkmeyer v. Latin Am. Air Cargo Expediters, Inc., 94 So.2d 821 (Fla.1957) (language which is unnecessary to the determination of the cause is dicta). That dicta, however, is supported by t......