THE CONSUMERS ELECTRIC LIGHT AND STREET RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
CHARLES W. SMITH, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's judgment because the appellant failed to properly preserve the issue for appeal by not excepting to the denial of a motion for a new trial.
No, the referee's ruling denying the motion for a new trial was not properly before the appellate court because no exception was taken to the ruling in the lower court.
“The only error assigned is involved in the ruling of the referee denying the motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is not supported by the evidence and is contrary to- the law and the evidence.”
This quote identifies the sole issue raised by the appellant.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error, Consumers Electric Light and Street Railroad Company, appealed a judgment from a referee in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough …
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 Motion For New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.:
This writ of error is from the judgment of a referee in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough county in an' action for personal injuries brought by the defendant m error against the plaintiff in error. The only error assigned is involved in the ruling of the referee denying the motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is not supported by the evidence and is contrary to-the law and the evidence.
The abstract of the record filed here, and not excepted to, and upon which alone under our rules the case must be adjudged, fails to show that any exception was taken or noted to the ruling of the referee denying the motion for a new trial.
In order to authorize an appellate court to review the ruling of a trial court denying a motion for a new trial such ruling must be duly excepted to; this not having been clone, as shown by the abstract of the record in this case, we are unauthorized to consider the propriety or impropriety of such ruling. The question thus presented being the only one upon a which a review is asked, the judgment of the court below is hereby affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Manatee Cnty. State Bank v. Wade, 56 Fla. 492 (Fla. 1908)…ght by proper bill of exceptions to' the appellate court with appropriate assignments of error duly argued. See Dupuis v. Thompson, 16 Fla. 69, text 73; Davis v. State, 47 Fla. 27, 36 South. Rep. 170; Consumers’ Electric Light & St. R. Co. v. Smith, 43 Fla. 52, 29 South. Rep. 445; Knox v. Barnett, 18 Fla. 594; Coleman v. State, 43 Fla. 543, 30 South. Rep. 684; McDonald v. State, 46 Fla. 149, 35 South. Rep. 72; Jacksonville Electric Co. v. Adams, 50 Fla. 429, 39 South. Rep. 183; 14 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 848; 29 C…
-
Woodlawn Park Cemetery Co. v. Tangerman, 117 Fla. 470 (Fla. 1934)…e appellate court. Florida Power Co. v. Cason, 79 Fla. 619, 84 So. 921; St. Andrews Bay Lbr. Co. v. Bernard, 106 Fla. 232, 143 So. 159; Henry v. Spitler, 67 Fla. 146, 64 So. 745, Ann. Cas. 1916-E, 1267; Consumers’ Elec. Light, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 43 Fla. 52, 29 So. 445. “In the absence of an exception to an order granting or refusing a new trial the sufficiency of the evidence is not properly presented to the supreme court. Phillips v. State, 62 Fla. 77, 57 So. 341; Alexander v. Rhine, 78 Fla. 313, 82…