FORCHEIMER & CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
LAWRENCE G. MAYO, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's judgment in a replevin action, holding that a jury's verdict based on conflicting evidence should not be disturbed on appeal.
No, the appellate court should not overturn a jury's verdict based on conflicting evidence when no errors in the trial proceedings are identified.
“It was a question of fact as to which of the parties were owners of the property.”
Establishes that the core of the case was a factual dispute for the jury to decide.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceForcheimer & Co. brought an action of replevin against Lawrence G. Mayo to recover 222 pine saw logs. The case was tried before a jury, which returned…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conflicting Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
delivered the opinion of the court.
This- was an action of replevin, brought by Forcheimer & Co. against Mayo, to recover 222 pine saw logs. The cause was tried before a jury, and the verdict was for the defendant.
Plaintiffs moved for new trial, upon the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and the law. This motion was denied, and judgment against the plaintiffs for costs was awarded. From this judgment the plaintiffs bring their appeal.
No exceptions to the rulings of the court on the trial, or ;to the charge to the jury were noted. It was a question of ■ fact as to which of the parties were owners of the property. The evidence was conflicting, and the jury have determined - the question. There is no suggestion of undue influence upon, or improper motives influencing the jury.
Upon the same principles and rules which control the decision in the case of Mayo, appellant, against Forcheimer *677& Co., appellees, decided at this term, this judgment must be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Foster v. Thornton, 119 Fla. 49 (Fla. 1934)…Hayes, 66 Fla. 589, 84 So. 274; So. Express Co. v. Williamson, 66 Fla. 286, 63 So. 433; Jacksonville Electric Co. v. Cubbage, 58 Fla. 287, 51 So. 139; McSwain v. Howell, 29 Fla. 248, 10 So. 588; Mayo v. Hynote, 16 Fla. 673; Forcheiner & Co. v. Mayo, 16 Fla. 676; DeFuniak Springs v. Purdue, 69 Fla. 326, 68 So. 235; Palatka Abstract & Title Co. v. Haskell, 100 Fla. 1504, 131 So. 394; S. A. L. Ry. v. Scarborough, 52 Fla. 425, 42 So. 706; Key v. Moore, 78 Fla. 205, 82 So. 810; 308 East 79th St. Corp. v. Favori…
-
Holland v. State ex rel. Duval Cnty., 23 Fla. 123 (Fla. 1887)
-
Broward v. Roche, 21 Fla. 465 (Fla. 1885)