Estes v. Manwarren
| Decision Date | 05 September 1930 |
| Citation | 100 Fla. 738,129 So. 917 |
| Parties | ESTES v. MANWARREN. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Commissioners' Decision.
Error to Circuit Court, Pinellas County; O. L. Dayton, Judge.
Action by George A. Manwarren against S. McL. Estes. To review an adverse judgment, defendant brings error.
Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court.
The court should not direct a verdict for one party unless the evidence is such that no view which the jury may lawfully take of it favorable to the other party can be sustained.
COUNSEL Kay, Adams, Ragland & Kurz, of Jacksonville for plaintiff in error.
Kelly & Casler, of Clearwater, for defendant in error.
This is an action in assumpsit, instituted by George A. Manwarren defendant in error, against S. McL. Estes, upon the common counts for money had and received. Defendant pleaded the general issue. The testimony shows that plaintiff paid over to defendant the sum of $5,000 sued for. There is conflict in the evidence as to the agreement had between the parties at the time of paying over this money. Testimony of the plaintiff is, in substance, that, as one of a syndicate which was being formed to take up a contract for purchase of certain lands, he paid to defendant $5,000, that defendant Estes was to hold the money until the others paid their share, and that the syndicate was not formed, whereupon plaintiff demanded return of the money paid and payment was refused.
The defendant testified, in substance, that he was one of four owners of certain lands at Fort Meade; that Taylor and associates held a contract for purchase of said lands, requiring certain payments to be made; that plaintiff, upon paying said amount of $5,000, stated he was one of the associates of Taylor, and that he was making payment to apply upon the purchase price of the property.
After all the evidence of the parties had been submitted, the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $5,000 sued for.
The court should not direct a verdict for one party unless the evidence is such that no view which the jury may lawfully take of it favorable to the other party can be sustained. Johnson v. L. & N. R. Co., 59 Fla. 305, 52 So. 195; section 4363(2696), Compiled General Laws of Florida 1927.
This case presented a question of fact which, on account of the conflict in the evidence, should have been passed upon by the jury.
The judgment is reversed
...
To continue reading
Request your trial