SOUTHERN PINE COMPANY OF GEORGIA, A CORPORATION, AND FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
L. B. POWELL AND E. D. ABERNATHY, PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS AS ABERNATHY & POWELL, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR

Fla. | 1904-06-01
48 Fla. 154 Florida Supreme Court (1904) Caution
Cited by 25 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

Southern Pine Company challenges a jury instruction in an attachment case that assumed the attached lumber was property of J.P. Middlemas & Company prior to attachment, when evidence showed some lumber came from other sources. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding the instruction violated the rule that judges must charge only on the law and cannot assume disputed facts.

Holding

The instruction was erroneous because there was no admission on both sides that all the attached property belonged to J.P. Middlemas & Company prior to attachment, and evidence tended to show some property came from other sources. The instruction violated the statutory requirement that judges charge the jury only on the law and cannot assume as proven matters that are in dispute or subject to conflicting evidence.

Key Quotes

“it was error to give this instruction to the jury, the tendency of which was to mislead and confuse the jury”

Establishes that the erroneous instruction was grounds for reversal due to its misleading effect

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

An attachment was filed against J.P. Middlemas & Company for debt. Southern Pine Company claimed the attached lumber (180,000 feet), asserting it had …

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
Jury Instructions Review Erroneous Jury Instruction

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jury Instructions Review cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
Shackleford, J.

Shackleford, J.

(after stating the facts'). — The first error assigned is as follows: “That the said Circuit Court erred in giving the following portion of the oral charge, which it gave to the jury of its own motion, to-wit: ‘You, therefore, start out, gentlemen, with an admission on both sides that the property was at one time, prior to the attachment, the property of J.

P. Middlemas & Company. You go by the testimony from that point to reach your conclusions as to whether the claimant is entitled to the property or whether the plaintiff in the attachment suit is entitled to make his debt of J.

P. Middlemas & Company,’ to the giving of which portion of the said oral charge, the said claimant, Southern Pine Company of Georgia, then and there. cepted.” In passing upon this assignment this court is restricted to the examination of said instruction and the statement accompanying the same, as provided by special rule 3, as said instruction and statement are made to appear in the ordinary bill of exceptions. Daytona Bridge Company v. Bond, 47 Fla. 136, 36 South. Rep. 445, and authorities therein cited.

The statement accompanying said charge is rather lengthy and we deem it unnecessary to set it forth in detail. Suffice it to say that we have given the same a careful examination and have failed to find anywhere therein any admission that the attached “property was, at one time, prior to the attachment, the property of J.

P. Middlemas & Company.” On the contrary, there was evidence, according to said statement, tending to show that there was some lumber in the 180,000 feet attached which had been received from others than J.

P. Middlemas & Company, some 34,780 feet having been purchased by claimant from the Inverness Lumber Company and delivered to claimant on the dock, where all of the lumber in question was. There being no admission “on both sides” that said attached property was at one time, prior to the attachment, the property of J.

P. Middlemas & Company, and there being some evidence which at least tended to show that some of the property in question was not the property of the defendants in attachment prior to the attachment, it was error to give this instruction to the jury, the tendency of which was to mislead and confuse the jury. This of itself is sufficient cause for reversal. See Meinhardt Bros. & Co. v. Mode, 25 Fla. 181, 5 South. Rep. 672; Livingston v. Anderson, 30 Fla. 117, text 131, 11 South. Rep. 270; Mayer Bros. v. Wilkins, 37 Fla. 244, 19 South. Rep. 632.

However, in our opinion, said instruction is objectionable for the further reason that it is violative of section 1088 of Rev. Stats. 1892, which requires the trial judge to charge the jury “only upon the law of the case.” That an instruction upon the facts, or assuming as proven fact mat ters which upon the trial are in dispute, or concerning which there is conflicting evidence, is erroneous, see Doggett v. Jordan, 2 Fla. 541; Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Foxworth, 41 Fla. 1, 25 South. Rep. 338; Baker v. Chatfield, 23 Fla. 540, 2 South. Rep. 822; Ashmead v. Wilson, 22 Fla. 255; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Yniestra, 21 Fla. 700; Ferguson v. Porter, 3 Fla. 27; Pinson v. State, 28 Fla. 735, text 749, 9 South. Rep. 706; Collins v. State, 13 Fla. 651.

Having found this error, which is sufficient to cause a reversal of the judgment, it becomes unnecessary for us to consider the other errors complained of, as they need not necessarily arise upon another trial of the cause.

For the error found the judgment must be reversed and a new trial awarded, and it is so ordered, at the cost of the defendants in error. Taylor, C. J., and Cockrell, Hocker and Whitfield, JJT., concur. Carter, J., absent.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

  • Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Beazley, 54 Fla. 311 (Fla. 1907)
    …ing thereon, as to do would clearly be an invasion of the province of the jury. See Williams v. LaPenotiere, 32 Fla. 491, 14 South. Rep. 157, and cases there cited; Sims v. Hodges, 34 Fla. 498, 16 South. Rep. 317; Southern Pine Co. of Ga. v. Powell, 48 Fla. 154, 37 South. Rep. 570. We would- also refer to our discussion of the first assignment in the first division of this opinion and the authorities there cited. We have already called attention to t-he issues in this case as made by the pleadings. Assum…
  • Cross v. Nannie L. Aby and R. H. Aby, 55 Fla. 311 (Fla. 1908)
    …om. See Metzger v. State, 18 Fla. 481, approvingly cited upon this point in Baker v. Chatfield, supra; Brown v. State, 18 Fla. 472, and authorities cited therein; Williams v. LaPenotiere, 32 Fla. 491, 14 South. Rep. 157; Southern Pine Co. v. Powell, 48 Fla. 154, 37 South. Rep. 570; Thomas v. State, 47 Fla. 99, 36 South. Rep. 161. The sixteenth assignment is based upon the giving [*324] of the following instruction, at the request of the plaintiffs : “If you should- find from the evidence that plaintiffs…
  • Johnson v. State, 51 Fla. 44 (Fla. 1906)
    …of any offense.” This charge, if otherwise correct, assumes that certain facts were proven when there was evidence to the contrary, and the charge was therefore properly refused. Carter v. State, 22 Fla. 553; Southern Pine Co. of Georgia v. Powell, 48 Fla. 154, 37 South. Rep. 570; Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythians v. Lipscomb, 50 Fla. 406, 39 South. Rep. 637. The verdict found the other plaintiffs in error and “August Ease guilty without violence.” It is contended that as to Augustus Hays this is a fatal…

Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (12 total)

View all 12 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw