J. T. PRINCE, S. J. FAIRCLOTH, J. C. WOODWARD AND W. C. PRINCE, FORMER PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS AS UNION MANUFACTURING COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
AUCILLA RIVER NAVAL STORES COMPANY, DEFENDANT 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.
In this trover action, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment against former business partners for converting 700,000 feet of lumber valued at $2,450. The court held that evidentiary errors in the bench trial did not warrant reversal because they did not injuriously affect the defendant's substantial rights and the evidence amply supported the trial judge's findings.
The judgment should be affirmed because the evidence amply supported the trial court's findings, which carry the weight of a jury verdict since the judge personally heard all testimony, and any evidentiary errors did not injuriously affect the plaintiffs' substantial rights, particularly because the case involved a bench trial rather than a jury trial.
“A judgment should not be reversed or new trial granted in any case for error in rulings upon the admission or rejection of evidence unless it shall appear to the court from a consideration of the entire case that such errors injuriously affect the substantial rights of the complaining party.”
Establishes the standard for when evidentiary errors warrant reversal or new trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs in error (J. T. Prince, S. J. Faircloth, J. C. Woodward, and W. C. Prince, former partners in Union Manufacturing Company) were sued in…
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 Trover cases and more on FLexlaw
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 $2,450.00, 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 Sou. Rep. 335.
The evidenec 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, especially since the case was not tried before a jury where irrelevant or immaterial *607testimony may sometimes be highly prejudicial to a fair consideration of the facts by untrained minds of jurors who might thereby be misled into rendering a verdict on testimony which should have little or no consideration as of evidentiary value.
A judgment should not be reversed or new trial granted in any case for error in rulings upon the admission or rejection of evidence unless it shall appear t'o the court from a consideration of the entire case that such errors injuriously affect the substantial rights of the complaining party. Holmberg v. Hardee, 90 Fla. 787, 108 Su. Rep. 213; Germak v. F. E. C. Ry. Co., 95 Fla. 991, 117 Sou. Rep. 391.
In this case the showing is ample to sustain the verdict and the errors as to admission or rejection of evidence relate mostly to the measure of recovery, not the liability.
The recovery was fixed by the court on the basis of liability which was most favorable t'o plaintiff in error and might well have been for a larger amount, so the showing of prejudice is negatived.
The judgment is affirmed.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
First Atl. Nat'l Bank OF Daytona Beach v. Olive S. Cobbett, 82 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1955)…. Here, again, we observe that in cases tried by the Judge without a jury the Judge is in a position to evaluate the testimony, and discard that which is improper or which has little or no evidentiary value. Prince v. Aucilla River Naval Stores Co., 103 Fla. 605, 137 So. 886. Our examination of the record leads us to conclude that the [*872] trial Judge did that in the case at bar. We do not find that the evidence objected to injuriously or harmfully affected appellant when considered and evaluated by an ex…
-
Williams v. State, 386 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1980)…Marshall about the events at the hospital. Given this posture, we do not believe that the trial court’s 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 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 952, 84 S.Ct. 1630, 12 [*541] L.Ed.2d 497 (1964); Sauget v. Johnston, 315 F. 2d…
-
Special v. Ivo Baux, M.D., 79 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…s.” See, e.g., Tormey v. Trout, 748 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Wall v. Alvarez, 742 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 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 or rejection of evidence unless it shall appear to the court from a consideration of the entire case that such erro…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Holmberg v. Cary A. Hardee, 90 Fla. 787 (Fla. 1925)
- Germak v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 95 Fla. 991 (Fla. 1928)
- George W. Wright & Co. v. Skinner, 34 Fla. 453 (Fla. 1894)