ROBERT W. SIMMS, APPELLANT,
v.
P. C. HODGES, APPELLEE

Fla. | 1894-06-01
34 Fla. 498 Florida Supreme Court (1894) Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases

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.

Synopsis

Robert Simms sued P.C. Hodges by attachment, alleging fraudulent disposition of property and removal beyond Florida to avoid debts. A jury found in favor of Hodges and the attachment was dissolved. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that conflicting evidence on the credibility of witnesses must be resolved by the jury, and appellate courts cannot interfere absent manifest preponderance of evidence against the verdict.

Holding

The appellate court will not interfere with a jury's verdict when the evidence is sufficiently conflicting that credibility determinations are central to the finding, and there is no manifest preponderance of evidence opposing the verdict that would suggest improper motives or influences affected the jury's decision.

Key Quotes

“the evidence presented for the plaintiff and for the defendant was so conflicting that the finding where the truth lay necessarily involved a settlement by the jury of the question of the credibility of the different witnesses”

Establishes that when evidence is conflicting and credibility is at issue, the jury's role is determinative and appellate courts cannot second-guess their verdict.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Simms, as plaintiff, filed an attachment action against Hodges in Duval County Circuit Court, alleging that Hodges was removing his property to Georgi…

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.

Topics
Attachment Jury Verdict Preponderance Of The Evidence Credibility Of Witnesses

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attachment cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
Taylor, J.:

Taylor, J.:

The appellant, as plaintiff below, sued the appellee in the Circuit Court of Duval county by attachment. The grounds for the attachment, as set out in the .affidavit therefor being: “that the defendant is actually removing his property beyond the limits of the State of Florida, to the State of Georgia; and is fraudulently disposing of his property for the purpose of avoiding the payment of his just debts and demands.” Upon a traverse of this affidavit filed by the appellee, defendant below, the issue was tried before a jury on motion to dissolve the attachment before plea.

The jury, upon the evidence offered, found a verdict in favor of the defendant, upon which the attachment was dissolved, and judgment for costs given in favor of the defendant. On the refusal of the court below to grant a new trial upon the grounds : 1st, that the verdict is contrary to the evidence; 2nd, that the verdict is against the charge of the court; 3rd, that the verdict is contrary to law, the plaintiff appeals here.

The only question presented for our determination by the errors assigned, is, does the evidence disclosed by the record present such a case as would authorize our interference with the finding of a jury upon the facts presented ? After due consideration thereof, our conclusion is that, the evidence presented for the plaintiff and for the defendant was so conflicting that the finding where the truth lay necessarily involved a settlement by the jury of the question of the credibility of the different-witnesses. There was proof that, if believed by the jury, would have sustained their verdict had it been in the plaintiffs favor; but, on the other hand, there is proof that is sufficient to sustain the verdict found in the defendant’s favor, when believed, as it seems to have been, by the jury. There is no such manifest preponderance of evidence in opposition to the finding of the jury as would warrant the assumption that their verdict was actuated by improper motives or influences. Under these circumstances, as this court has so often held,we can not interfere. Tallahassee R. R. Co. vs. Macon, 8 Fla., 299; Gaines vs. Forcheimer & Bros., 9 Fla., 265; Coker vs. Merritt’s Exor., 16 Fla., 416; Coker & Scheiffer vs. Hayes, Ibid, 368; Nickles & Gautier vs. Mooring, Ibid, 76; Mayo vs. Hynote, Ibid, 673; Pensacola & Georgia R. R. Co. vs. Nash, 12 Fla., 497; Wilson vs. Dibble, 14 Fla., 47; Netso & Bohlen vs. Foss & Schneider, 21 Fla., 145; Sherman vs. State, 17 Fla., 888; Glover vs. State, 22 Fla., 493; Maxwell vs. Agnew, 21 Fla., 154; Williams vs. State, 34 Fla., 217, 15 So. Rep., 760.

The j udgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Beazley, 54 Fla. 311 (Fla. 1907)
    …3, South. Rep. 318, and authorities there cited. This assignment is without merit. In fact, this contention of the defendant has already been decided ad [*414] versely to it by this court. See Glover v. State, 22 Fla. 493. Also see Simms v. Hodges, 34 Fla. 498, 16 South. Rep. 317, and authorities there cited; Lang v. State, 42 Fla. 595, text 601, 28 South. Rep. 856, text 858; Hughes on Instructions to Juries, §365, and authorities cited in notes. IV. The fifth assignment is as follows: “The court erred…
    1 / 3
  • Wilson v. Jernigan, 57 Fla. 277 (Fla. 1909)
    …rly influenced by considerations outside the evidence, we must follow the example of the trial judge in refusing to disturb it. That has long been the settled practice of this court. See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Beazley, supra; Simms v. Hodges, 34 Fla. 498, 16 South. Rep. 317; Schultz v. Pacific Insurance Co., 14 Fla. 73, text 94; McNish v. State, 47, Fla. 69, 36 South Rep. 176; Valdosta Mercantile Co. v. White, 56 Fla. 704, 47 South. Rep. 961. Numerous other decisions of this court will be found coll…
  • Valdosta Mercantile Co. v. White, 56 Fla. 704 (Fla. 1908)
    …dence to support the verdict it will not be disturbed or set aside by an appellate court as being against the evidence, unless it may well be assumed that the jury was improperly influenced by considerations outside the evidence. See Sims v. Hodges, 34 Fla. 498, 16 South. Rep. 317; McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69, 36 South. Rep. 176; Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Beazley, 54 Fla. 311, 45 South. Rep. 761, wherein numerous authorities will be found collected. As this court has also held, it is generally with…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw