Pitt v. Abrams

Decision Date23 December 1931
Citation139 So. 152,103 Fla. 1022
PartiesPITT v. ABRAMS.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Error to Circuit Court, Dade County; A. V. Long, Judge.

Ejectment suit by William T. Pitt against Marion Abrams. Judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff brings error.

Reversed.

COUNSEL

Ross Williams and Harry Neham, both of Miami, for plaintiff in error.

Carr Carr & Carr, of Miami, for defendant in error.

OPINION

BUFORD C.J.

In this case plaintiff in error filed ejectment suit against defendant in error to recover certain lands in Dade county. The summons and declaration were in conventional form.

The defendant pleaded not guilty.

The cause came on for trial, and plaintiff offered in evidence a deed from one John H. Treusdell to himself and then testified as follows:

'I know Mr. John H. Truesdell was in possession of this land as he and I lived together and I know he bought it. We lived where he is now on Flagler Arcade. There was no improvement on the lot. It was a vacant lot. I know Mr. Truesdell was in possession of this lot because he had it, because I bought from the agent. Mr. Truesdell had a deed from Miller. I saw it and had the abstract examined. That is the way I know it. I saw his deed. Mr. Miller showed it to me. I saw the deed. There was no improvement on the lot.'

At the close of this evidence attorney for plaintiff announced that he closed his case. Thereupon the judge sua sponte directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. Thereupon, plaintiff's attorney, addressing the court, said: 'Will you permit me to go ahead?' The court replied, 'You closed your case,' and further stated: 'When a man comes into court and has a jury empaneled, and brings the defendant in and offers his case and says 'closed' that ends it. There is absolutely no case presented for the jury.' The court then directed counsel to prepare a verdict for the defendant. Thereupon, plaintiff's attorney announced, 'Plaintiff will take a nonsuit.' The court declined to allow plaintiff to take a nonsuit. The court then examined the verdict which was prepared and ordered a member of the jury to sign it as foreman. The verdict in favor of defendant was signed, read, and filed.

There are two points raised by the assignments of error. The first is: Was it reversible error for the court to decline to allow plaintiff to proceed further with the presentation of his case after he had announced 'closed?' The plaintiff proffered nothing, in no manner indicated what he had proposed to show in addition to what he had already shown. Under the evidence as submitted the plaintiff could not recover. The plaintiff had shown only a deed purporting to convey the property involved. As a conclusion he testified that Truesdell, the vendor in that deed, was in possession of the property, but his testimony as to facts shows that this conclusion was erroneous; that the property was vacant, unimproved property, and no acts of physical possession were exercised over it either by the plaintiff or his predecessors in title. The request to be allowed to proceed further with the case came after the court had directed the jury, and properly so, to return a verdict in favor of the defendant. Denying the request was not error.

The other question presented is whether or not the court committed reversible error in denying plaintiff the privilege...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Thoman v. Ashley, 4548
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 18, 1964
    ...amenable to change only by statute prior to the 1954 R.C.P., has been held not subject to judicial discretion. Pitt v. Abrams, 1941, 103 Fla.App., 1022, 1024, 139 So. 152. A sole exception has been recognized in circumstances where the plaintiff clearly could not recover in any event, as wh......
  • Hartquist v. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 18, 1939
    ... ... 525; Haile v. Mason Hotel & Inv. Co., 71 Fla. 469, ... 71 So. 540; West Coast Fruit Co. v. Hackney, 98 Fla ... 382, 123 So. 758; Pitt v. Abrams, 103 Fla. 1022, 139 ... [139 ... Fla. 345] A nonsuit is of two kinds--voluntary and ... involuntary. It becomes involuntary ... ...
  • Cook v. Lichtblau
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 28, 1965
    ...presentation of plaintiff's cause of action.' Hartquist v. Tamiami Trail Tours, 139 Fla. 328, 190 So.2d 533, 540. See also Pitt v. Abrams, 103 Fla. 1022, 139 So. 152, and Haile v. Mason Hotel & Investment Co., 71 Fla. 469, 71 So. 540. It should be noted that the right to appeal from such an......
  • J. Schnarr & Co. v. Virginia-carolina Chemical Corp.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1934
    ...attempted litigation between the same parties involving the same subject-matter and presenting the same questions of law. In the Pitt v. Abrams Case, supra, it would seem that the order of the court directing a verdict for the would operate to estop the plaintiff from asserting a title to t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT