Prince v. Aucilla River Naval Stores Co.
| Decision Date | 19 November 1931 |
| Parties | PRINCE et al. v. AUCILLA RIVER NAVAL STORES CO. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Madison County; M. F. Horne, Judge.
Action of trover by the Aucilla River Naval Stores Company against J. T. Prince and others, former partners doing business as the Union Manufacturing Company. Judgment for the plaintiff and the defendants bring error.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court.
Evidence examined, and found sufficient to support the findings of the circuit judge, which have the weight of a jury verdict where the entire testimony was personally heard by the judge on an agreement that he should try the case without a jury.
Alleged errors as to the admission and rejection of evidence found not to have injuriously affected the right of the complaining party, even though irrelevant or immaterial, where case was not tried before a jury, under circumstances where iffelevant and immaterial testimony may sometimes be highly prejudicial to a fair consideration by untrained minds of jurors who might thereby be misled into rendering a verdict on testimony which would be entitled to little or no consideration as of evidentiary value.
R. H. Rowe, of Madison, for plaintiffs in error.
W. T Hendry, of Perry, for defendant in error.
In an action of trover against the plaintiffs in error, the defendant in error recovered a judgment in the amount of $3,381.62.
There were two trials of the case, the second being tried before the circuit judge without a jury. The trial court found that the defendants had converted 700,000 feet of lumber of the value of $2,450, and rendered a verdict for that amount on the theory that the damages were assessable as against an innocent vendee from a mistaken trespasser under the rule laid down in Wright v. Skinner, 34 Fla. 453, 16 So 335.
The evidence has been examined and found amply sufficient to support the findings of the circuit judge, which have the weight of a jury verdict because the entire testimony was personally heard by the judge on an agreement that he should try the case without a jury.
Errors as to the admission and rejection of evidence have not been shown to have injuriously affected the rights of the complaining party, especialy since the case was not tried before a jury, where irrelevant or immaterial testimony may sometimes be highly prejudicial to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Special v. Baux
...4th DCA 1999); Centex–Rooney Constr. Co. v. Martin Cnty., 706 So.2d 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). See also Prince v. Aucilla River Naval Stores Co., 103 Fla. 605, 137 So. 886, 887 (1931) (“A judgment should not be reversed or new trial granted in any case for error in rulings upon the admission o......
-
Petion v. State
...to analyze decisions from Florida courts. Beginning with the precedent of this Court, the decision in Prince v. Aucilla River Naval Stores Co., 103 Fla. 605, 137 So. 886 (1931), established the deference an appellate court should afford a trial judge's ability to segregate inadmissible evid......
-
Williams v. State
...technical error injuriously affected the substantial rights of appellant. § 59.041, Fla.Stat. (1975); Prince v. Aucilla River Naval Stores Co., 103 Fla. 605, 137 So. 886 (1931); Reliable Services, Inc. v. Taft, 247 So.2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); accord, Myrick v. United States, 332 F.2d 279 (......
-
Martin v. State
...to bring out the fact of his silence after receiving the Miranda warning was reversible error, relying on Prince v. Aucilla River Naval Stores Co., 103 Fla. 605, 137 So. 886 (1931); and Belcher Towing Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 233 So.2d 456 (Fla.3d DCA 1970). I cannot agree with......