CHARLES NETSO AND JOHN C. H. BOHLEN, APPELLANTS,
v.
FOSS & SCHNEIDER, APPELLEES
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 judgment for plaintiffs in an assumpsit action for beer barrels, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict despite conflicting testimony.
Yes, the testimony of the plaintiffs' witnesses and the defendants' own letters provided sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict.
“The testimony of plaintiffs’ witnesses and the letters written by each of the defendants to plaintiffs-relating to the cause of action were sufficient to sustain the action.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the plaintiffs.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs sued defendants for the price of beer barrels. The defendants appealed a jury verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, assigning er…
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.
The Chiee-Justice
delivered the opinion of the court:
Action of assumpsit for a quantity of beer barrels had by appellants from respondents. Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs and defendants appealed.
The errors assigned are that the verdict was against evidence, against the weight of evidence and against the law.
The testimony of plaintiffs’ witnesses and the letters written by each of the defendants to plaintiffs-relating to the cause of action were sufficient to sustain the action.
Defendant Bohlen’s testimony contradicts that offered by plaintiffs in some material respects. The question of veracity was very properly left to the jury and they have-decided it. There is nothing to show that the verdict was-controlled by anything other than a proper consideration of the testimony. Eo other question arises upon the record.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Browning v. State, 41 Fla. 271 (Fla. 1899)…a. 76; Coker v. Merritt, ibid. 416; Forcheimer v. Mayo, ibid. 676; Sherman v. State, 17 Fla. 888; McMurray and Brittain v. Basnett, 18 Fla. 609; Huling v. Fla. Savings Bank and Real Estate Exchange, 19 Fla. 695; Netso and Bohlen v. Foss & Schneider, 21 Fla. 145. _ We think that the evidence for the State in this case was ample to sustain the verdict found. The testimony for the defendant conflicted with it in some respects, but the jury, who are the exclusive arbiters of the credibility of witnesses, have…
-
Simms v. Hodges, 34 Fla. 498 (Fla. 1894)
-
Wilson v. Maddox, 97 Fla. 489 (Fla. 1929)…he evidence unless it may well be assumed that the jury were improperly influenced by considerations outside the evidence. See Nickel v. Mooring, 16 Fla. 76; Huling v. Florida Savings Bank, 19 Fla. 695; Moses v. Gilchrist, 14 Fla. 325; Netro v. Foss 21 Fla. 145; Griffin v. Jacksonville Tampa and K. W. Ry. Co., 33 Fla. 606, 15 So. R. 338; Bishop v. Taylor, 41 Fla. 77, 25 So. R. 287; Sims v. Hodges, 34 Fla. 498, 16 So. R. 317. There was no error in the charges given by the court sufficiently serious in view…