HENRY HORSLER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE PROVISIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PENSACOLA, 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 decision, upholding a jury verdict in a rental dispute case. The court found no error in the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for a new trial, concluding the verdict was supported by evidence and consistent with the law.
No, the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. The jury's verdict was found to be in conformity with the evidence and the law.
“The verdict in our opinion is strictly in conformity with the evidence of the case.”
Establishes the court's finding that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenry Horsler sued the Provisional Municipality of Pensacola for unpaid rent on a building. The jury found in favor of Horsler, awarding him $26.08. D…
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 Action For Rent cases and more on FLexlaw
Mitchell, J.:
The appellant instituted suit in Escam bia Circuit Court against the appellee to recover the rental of a building alleged by the declaration to be due from the defendant in the court below to the plaintiff.
Defendant pleaded:
1st. Never indebted.
2d. That the defendant never was indebted in manner and form as in the declaration alleged.
The plaintiff, subsequently filed an additional count to the declaration, in which an alleged contract is set up as to the rental for a certain building.
Defendant pleaded that this count is not true.
The plaintiff joined issue on the pleas and the issues were submitted to a jury, and the jury found for the plaintiff and assessed his damages at $26.08 ; the plaintiff being dissatisfied with the verdict of the jury filed his motion for new trial, which motion was overruled and the plaintiff’ appealed.
The only error assigned is that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial, the grounds of which motion are:
1st. The verdict is contrary to and unsupported by the evidence.
The verdict in our opinion is strictly in conformity with the evidence of the case.
2d. That the verdict is contrary to law.
The appellant does not show wherein the verdict is co - trary to law, nor do we think that it is.
The 3d and 4th grounds refer to the charge of the court. We have examined the charge and find that it covers the law of the case.
We see no error in any of the proceedings.
Affirmed.