Kight v. American Eagle Fire Ins. Co. of New York
Decision Date | 11 March 1938 |
Citation | 179 So. 792,131 Fla. 764 |
Parties | KIGHT v. AMERICAN EAGLE FIRE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; L. L. Parks, Judge.
Action by A. M. Kight against the American Eagle Fire Insurance Company of New York on a fire policy with a standard mortgage clause to plaintiff. To review an order granting a new trial after the return of a verdict for plaintiff, plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
COUNSEL W. B. Dickenson, Joseph E. Williams, and Edwin R. Dickenson, all of Tampa, for plaintiff in error.
Sutton Reeves & Hobbs, of Tampa, for defendant in error.
This is a writ of error sued out to an order of the circuit court of Hillsborough county, Fla., granting a new trial. Plaintiff sued defendant to recover for a fire loss on a policy of fire insurance issued by the defendant to Augusta L. Gillean, with a standard mortgage clause to the plaintiff. The policy of insurance was for the sum of $2,000, while the face of the notes and mortgage was in the sum of $4,500. The declaration is in the form prescribed by the statute.
The defendant filed pleas to plaintiff's declaration, viz (1) Denial that assured was indebted to the plaintiff; (2) denial of any unpaid indebtedness from the assured to the plaintiff; (3) denial of a valid mortgage on the real estate and against the proceeds of the insurance (4) that the equitable ownership of the property was not in plaintiff but plaintiff's father, John C. Sumner; (5) that John C. Sumner was the owner of the note, mortgage, and insurance; (7) plaintiff held the note and mortgage as trustee for her father; (8) plaintiff was not the sole owner of the insured property; (9) the true value of the insured property did not exceed $1,000.
The cause was submitted on the aforesaid issues, with appropriate instructions, and a verdict was rendered in behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial on a number of grounds. On the 22d day of March, 1937, the court below granted the motion for a new trial on the grounds of the motion numbered 3 to 8, inclusive, and 19 to 22, inclusive, viz.:
This court has held, when considering several grounds of a motion for a new trial, if either ground thereof finds substantial support in the record, the said order granting a new trial will not be disturbed on writ of error to this court. See Gibson v. Lehde, 128 Fla. 703, 175 So. 726. Likewise it has been held, even where there is a conflict in the evidence, the order granting a new trial will not be disturbed in the absence of abuse of discretion and violation of settled law. See Woods v. Atlantic C. L. R. R. Co., 100 Fla. 909, text 911, 130 So. 601, and authorities cited. In the case of Herrin v. Avon Mfg. Co., 87 Fla. 385, text 387, 100 So. 174, 175, this court said:
In Beckwith v. Bailey, 119 Fla. 316, text 325, 161 So. 576, 579, this court had before it for review an order granting a motion for a new trial on several different grounds and the order granting the new trial failed to name or specify any ground on which the ruling was based, and the order granting the new trial was affirmed, and in doing so this court said:
In considering an order granting a new trial in the case of Carney v. String-fellow, 73 Fla. 700, text 703, 74 So. 866, 867, it was said by Mr. Justice Whitfield, in behalf of the court:
'On writ of error taken under the statute [Gen.St.1906, § 1695, now Comp.Gen.Laws 1927, § 4615] to an order granting a new trial in a civil action at law the only questions to be considered are those involved in the order granting a new trial.
'A stronger showing is required to reverse an order allowing a new trial than to reverse one denying it.
'Where a new trial is granted, and there is such a conflict in the evidence that this court cannot say the trial judge abused his discretion in granting such new trial, his ruling will not be disturbed.
'Where the evidence on a material issue in a cause is conflicting, and it does not so preponderate in favor of the verdict as to show an abuse of discretion or the violation of any provision or settled principle of law in granting a new trial, the action of the trial court will not be disturbed on writ of error.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grant v. Williams
...rules particularly applicable when an appellate court is asked to review an order granting a new trial. In Kight v. American Eagle Fire Ins. Co. of New York, 131 Fla. 764, 179 So. 792, we held that a stronger showing is required to reverse an order allowing a new trial than to reverse one d......
-
Cloud v. Fallis, 185
...rules particularly applicable when an appellate court is asked to review an order granting a new trial. In Kight v. American Eagle Fire Ins. Co. of New York, 131 Fla. 764, 179 So. 792, we held that a stronger showing is required to reverse an order allowing a new trial than to reverse one d......
-
Urga v. State
... ... Hanlan, ... Fla., 36 So.2d 192; Kight v. American Eagle Fire ... Ins. Co. of New York, ... ...
-
Cunningham v. Romano, 72--607
...support in the record and the trial judge's discretion will not be interfered with in this area. See Kight v. American Eagle Fire Ins. Co. of New York, 131 Fla. 764, 179 So. 792 (1938); Sawyer v. Dawson, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and the order grant......