SPENCER A. FOLSOM, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ANDREW HOFFMAN AND FRANK MARINKO, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
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 reversed a lower court's judgment, finding that the jury should have been allowed to consider evidence regarding reasonable time for contract cancellation and title marketability.
Yes, the trial court erred in directing a verdict on counts one and four, as evidence regarding reasonable time for contract cancellation and title marketability should have been presented to the jury.
“It is contended here that error was committed in sustaining objection to the testimony of the witness, Spencer A. Folsom, that plaintiffs had not made payment of $17,-300 or tendered such payment in accordance with the terms of the contract, and in granting the motion of plaintiff for a directed verdict as to counts one and four of the declaration.”
This quote outlines the specific errors the appellant argued on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error (defendant below) was sued for breach of contract and a judgment was entered against him. The defendant contended that the cour…
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 Marketable Title cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendants in error as plaintiffs below recovered a judgment against plaintiff in error for breach of contract in the sum of five thousand eight hundred ninety-seven and twenty-two one-hundredths ($5,897.22) dollars. Writ of error was taken to the judgment.
It is contended here that error was committed in sustaining objection to the testimony of the witness, Spencer A. Folsom, that plaintiffs had not made payment of $17,-300 or tendered such payment in accordance with the terms of the contract, and in granting the motion of plaintiff for a directed verdict as to counts one and four of the declaration.
Counts one and four of the declaration raised the question of what is a reasonable time allowance for the cancellation of the contract on failure to comply with the terms thereof, no definite time being stated therein, and what would be a reasonable time allowance for making the title brought in question marketable. Evidence was submitted on these questions that should have gone to the jury. Directing a verdict on them was, therefore, error for which the cause must be and is hereby reversed. Jenkins v. Lykes, 19 Fla. 148, 156; Haile v. Mason Hotel & Investment Company, 71 Fla. 469, 71 So. R. 540; 13 C. J. 791; S. A. L. Ry. Co. v. Scarborough, 52 Fla. 425, 447, 42 So. R. 706; 38 Cyc. 1525.
Reversed.
*1371Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur. '■
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Atl. Peninsular Holding Co. v. August Oenbrink, 133 Fla. 325 (Fla. 1938)…ystem were to be settled by a jury. This Court has by an unbroken line of decisions held that it was error to direct a verdict on any question submitted to evidence that should have been considered by the jury. See Folsom v. Hoffman, 100 Fla. 1369, 131 So. 318. A verdict should be directed for one party only when the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain a verdict for the opposite party. Aberson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 68 Fla. 196, 67 So. 44. If the evidence is conflicting or will admit of di…
-
Frank W. Kells and wife Rosa C. Kells v. Davidson, 102 Fla. 684 (Fla. 1931)…ther disposition. This Court is committed to the doctrine that when a Judge is once disqualified to officiate in a cause pending, the disqualification continues throughout proceedings in the cause. Merchants Bank & Trust Co. et al. vs. Rowe, Judge, 131 Sou. 318. In this case the disqualification of the Judge under the provisions of Section 2525 R. G. S., 4152 C. G. L., appeared of record by the Certificate of Judge Bullock. Section 2528 R. G. S., 4155 C. G. L., provides: “Any and all judgments, decrees a…
-
Albritton v. State, 132 Fla. 801 (Fla. 1938)…p and delivery to them of the hogs. This Court has by an unbroken line of decisions held that it was error to direct a verdict on any question submitted on evidence that should have been considered by the jury. See Folsom v. Hoffman, 100 Fla. 1369, 131 So. 318. A verdict should be directed for one party only when the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain a verdict for the opposite party. Aberson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 68 Fla. 196, 67 So. 44. If the evidence is conflicting or will admit, of d…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Haile v. Mason Hotel & Inv. Co., 71 Fla. 469 (Fla. 1916)
- Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Manley P. Scarborough, 52 Fla. 425 (Fla. 1906)
- Cyprian T. Jenkins v. Lykes, 19 Fla. 148 (Fla. 1882)