Pitt v. Abrams
Decision Date | 23 December 1931 |
Citation | 139 So. 152,103 Fla. 1022 |
Parties | PITT v. ABRAMS. |
Court | Florida 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.
Ross Williams and Harry Neham, both of Miami, for plaintiff in error.
Carr Carr & Carr, of Miami, for defendant in error.
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:
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: 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-
Thoman v. Ashley, 4548
...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.
... ... 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
...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.
...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......