R. F. MCCONNELL ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
MARY LOUISE SULLIVAN, 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.
In this contract dispute over use and occupation of an opera house in Pensacola, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict for the appellee, holding that incomplete record transcripts prevent meaningful appellate review of alleged errors in sustaining demurrers to the defendants' pleas.
The court affirmed the judgment, holding that even assuming arguendo that error existed in overruling the plea, reversal was not warranted because the incomplete record did not show the actual issues tried, the evidence presented, or whether the defendants were prejudiced by the alleged error.
“In the absence of the issues upon which the case was tried, and any showing as to what the testimony tended to develop thereunder, we can not know that appellants were harmed in the rendition of the judgment against them, and should not presume that they were, in the absence of record evidence not before us.”
Establishes that without a complete record showing the issues tried and testimony, the court will not presume error or prejudice to the appellant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee sued the appellants for use and occupation of apartments in an opera house in Pensacola. The defendants filed pleas, including a second a…
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 Presumption Of Correctness Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Mabry, C. J.:
Suit was instituted by appellee against appellants, for use and occupation of the apartments and adjustments of an opera house situated in Pensacola. The record entry as to the pleas of defendants to the declaration commences as follows: “And now come the said defendants, and for additional pleas say,” and then follows one plea numbered two (2). A demurrer was sustained to this plea. Subsequently a plea of set-off was filed, but it was ruled out on demurrer, and the record recites that the case was then submitted to a jury to try the issues joined between the parties, and thereupon a verdict was returned for plaintiff, upon which there was a judgment entry. Defendants entered an appeal before the Revised Statutes went into effect. There was no motion for a new trial with a bill of exceptions, and the only error assigned is in the ruling sustaining the demurrer to the second additional plea. What were the pleas upon which the issues were made, and on which the case was submitted to the jury, we do not know, as the record discloses none of them; but it is apparent that there were such pleas.
The record was made before the new rules governing the making up of transcripts were adopted, and the clerk’s certificate does not show that all of the proceedings in the case were certified to us. It states that the pages of the transcript contain all the proceedings material to the appeal, but we are not to be governed by the clerk’s certificate as to what is material.
From an examination of the second additional plea and the authorities cited by counsel, it is not apparent that there was any error in overruling it; but conceding that there was, we do not think the judgment should be reversed on this record. A presumption against the correctness of the judgment should not be indulged, in the absence of existing record evidence that may overcome such presumption. In the absence of the issues upon which the case was tried, and any showing as to what the testimony tended to develop thereunder, we can not know that appellants were harmed in the rendition of the judgment against them, and should not presume that they were, in the absence of record evidence not before us. It may be that they had the benefit of all legitimate defenses of which they could have availed themselves on the facts of the case under the issues made, and if so, there would be no reversible error on the record. Parkhurst vs. Stone, 36 Fla. 456, 18 South. Rep. 594.
We affirm the judgment on the record without reference to the ruling on the second additional plea, which alone is presented on the record for our consideration. Ordered accordingly.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stinson v. State, 76 Fla. 421 (Fla. 1918)…as not permitted to answer the question. Error must be made to appear if it exists, this court has repeatedly-said, and if it does not appear the presumption that the judgment was right obtains. See Petty v. Mays, 19 Fla. 652; McConnell v. Sullivan, 37 Fla. 576, 20 South. Rep. 762; Vinson v. Palmer, 45 Fla. 630, 34 South. Rep. 276; Lewis v. State, 55 Fla. 54, 45 South. Rep. 998; Putnal v. State, 56 Fla. 86, 47 South. Rep. 864; Colson v. State, 51 Fla. 19, 40 South. Rep. 183. Assignments of error numbered…
-
Vinson v. Palmer, 45 Fla. 630 (Fla. 1903)…the allegation in the declaration as to the $500 notes to which it was properly applicable, or after the allegation as to the $86.87 note to which it was not applicable. The presumption is that it was made at the proper place (McConnell v. Sullivan, 37 Fla. 576, 20 South. Rep. 762), and that this assignment is without merit. VI. The eleventh and twelfth assignments of error, which are argued together, are based upon the denial of the defendant’s motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial. The first…
-
Gulf Coast Title Co. v. Walters, 124 Fla. 134 (Fla. 1936)…. 90, 116 Sou. 23. The appellate court must, in the absence of record evidence to the contrary, presume that the order or judgment challenged by appeal or writ of error is the order or judgment which should have been entered. McConnell v. Sullivan, 37 Fla. 576, 20 Sou. 762; O’steen v. State, 92 Fla. 1062, 111 Sou. 725; White v. Crandall, 105 Fla. 70, 143 Sou. 871. The plaintiff in error contends that the order granting a new trial should be reversed because the record shows that the trial judge apprehend…
Authorities Cited
- Parkhurst v. Stone, 36 Fla. 456 (Fla. 1895)