Marianna Mfg. Co. v. Boone
| Decision Date | 28 January 1908 |
| Citation | 55 Fla. 289,45 So. 754 |
| Parties | MARIANNA MFG. CO. v. BOONE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Jackson County; J. Emmet Wolfe, Judge.
Action by M. F. Boone against the Marianna Manufacturing Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Where a declaration contains two counts, and the verdict finds for the plaintiff on one specified count of the declaration for an amount less than was claimed in that count, and the verdict does not mention the other count, such a verdict is in law an effectual finding for the defendant on the count not mentioned in the verdict.
Where the verdict is in effect for the defendant on any one or more of the counts of a declaration, the costs should be taxed as the statute and rule direct.
Objections to the form of a verdict should be made before the jury is discharged.
COUNSEL Benj. S. Liddon, for plaintiff in error.
C. L Wilson, for defendant in error.
The declaration was for breach of contract, and contained three counts. A demurrer was sustained as to the third count. The first count claimed damages in $366.67 and interest, and the second count claimed damages in $400 and interest. Pleas to the merits were filed to the first and second counts and issue was joined thereon.
At the trial the following verdict was rendered: 'We the jury find for the plaintiff under the first count of the declaration, and assess the damages at $248.77 1/3.' Judgment was entered for the amount so found and costs.
The defendant took writ of error, and one of the errors assigned is the entering of judgment for the plaintiff upon the verdict herein.
It is contended solely that 'the court should not have entered a judgment upon the verdict, because it is a partial finding of only one of the issues before the jury, but should have granted a new trial, and submitted the case to another jury that the entire case might be determined and disposed of.'
Issues were joined on the pleas to the merits to each of the two counts of the declaration, and the verdict is for the plaintiff on the first count, with no reference in the verdict to the second count.
The legal effect of the verdict is a finding for the plaintiff in the amount stated therein on the first count, and a finding for the defendant on the second count. Although the declaration contains two counts, to which pleas to the merits were filed, and issue joined upon all the pleas, the verdict returned fully responded to all the issues tried, as it is an express and affirmative finding in favor of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Ivey
...with the record should be indulged in favor of a verdict that is responsive to the issues made by the pleadings.' In Marianna Mfg. Co. v. Boone, 55 Fla. 289, 45 So. 754, is held: 'Objections to the form of the verdict should be made before the jury is discharged.' In Robinson v. State, 45 F......
-
Sherman v. Sherman
...out of the same transaction is permitted, which is the reason the court did not follow its prior holding in Marianna Mfg. Co. v. Boone , 55 Fla. 289, 45 So. 754 (1908). Id. Importantly, the court said:In Marianna Mfg. Co. , we concluded that "[w]here the verdict is in effect for the defenda......
-
Latner v. Preusler & Associates, Inc.
...of the verdict, the court had no choice but to enter judgment according to the verdict in favor of Appellant. See Marianna Mfg. Co. v. Boone, 55 Fla. 289, 45 So. 754 (1908) (stating return of no verdict on count is verdict in favor of defendant on that REVERSED AND REMANDED. EVANDER, J., co......
-
Hendry Tractor Co. v. Fernandez
...liability count and is entitled to costs for that portion of the litigation under the principle enunciated in Marianna Mfg. Co. v. Boone, 55 Fla. 289, 45 So. 754, 755 (1908): "Where the verdict is in effect for the defendant on any one or more of the counts of a declaration, the costs shoul......