ELAM B. CARLTON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THOMAS B. KING, 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 for the defendant in an assumpsit action, finding no reversible error in the exclusion of evidence or the jury's verdict. The court held that even if evidence was improperly excluded, no harm resulted, and the verdict was supported by evidence and not shown to be biased.
No, the exclusion of the letter and telegram did not harm the plaintiff as the matters stated therein were testified to without objection and uncontradicted. No, the verdict was not contrary to the evidence or the result of bias, as it was supported by evidence and approved by the trial court.
“therefore, even if they were improperly excluded no harm resulted to the plaintiff.”
Establishes the reasoning for why the exclusion of evidence was not reversible error.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Elam B. Carlton brought an action of assumpsit against Thomas B. King. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the trial court en…
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 Verdict Contrary To Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*159] Per Curiam.
An 'action of assumpsit was brought in the Circuit Court for DeSoto County by Elam B. Carlton against Thomas B. King, who pleaded never was indebted. At the trial the jury rendered a verdict for the defendant. After overruling a motion for new trial made by the plaintiff, the court entered a judgment for the defendant. Upon writ of error here the only assignment of error argued is the overruling of the motion for new trial.
It is contended that a letter from a third person to the plaintiff and a telegram from the plaintiff to the third person, which were offered in evidence by the plaintiff and excluded by the court, were a part of the res gestae and were erroneously excluded. The letter and telegram were not shown to be connected with the defendant but matters stated therein were without objection testified to by the plaintiff and not contradicted, therefore, even if they were improperly excluded no harm resulted to the plaintiff.
It is also contended that the verdict is contrary to the evidence and is the result of bias. The evidence of the plaintiff was in many material particulars contradicted by the defendant and much of the evidence of the other witnesses tended to corroborate the defendant. This being so, and there being evidence to sustain the verdict which was approved by the trial court, and as nothing appears in the record to show bias of the jury or abuse of a sound judicial discretion of the court, the judgment is affirmed at the cost of the plaintiff in error. Shackleford, C. J., and Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur. Taylor, Hocker, and-Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M. David Sims, M.D. v. Brown, 574 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1991)…t to examinations and the histories. This is no different than what anybody has testified to as far as I know.” Even if wrongfully excluded, the exclusion of cumulative testimony is not an adequate basis for vacating a jury verdict. Carlton v. King, 51 Fla. 158, 40 So. 191 (1906); Farmer v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 252 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 255 So. 2d 686 (Fla.1971). Our review of the record discloses that good and valid grounds existed for the trial judge to reject the evidence discussed abov…
-
Holstun & Son v. Embry, 124 Fla. 554 (Fla. 1936)…ene cannot be transferred to the appellate court. Broxson v. State, 99 Fla. 1187, 128 South. Rep. 528. Where there is nothing to show bias or abuse of discretion and there is evidence to sustain the verdict it will not be disturbed. Carlton v. King, 51 Fla. 158, 40 South. Rep. 191. It must be so plainly against the evidence as to lead to the conclusion that it was the result of prejudice. McSwain v. Howell, 29 Fla. 248, 10 South. Rep. 588. Or against the manifest justice of the case. Middleton v. State, 63…
-
Jennings v. Pope, 136 So. 471 (Fla. 1931)…te to require discussion or citation of cases to support it that where there is substantial evidence to sustain the verdict and bias or abuse of judicial discretion does not appear in the record the verdict will not be disturbed. See Carlton v. King,51 Fla. 158, 40 South. Rep. 191. When the jury as reasonable men may have found the verdict they did after careful consideration of the evidence the verdict will not be disturbed on appeal. Pensacola Electric Co. v. Bissett, 59 Fla. 360, 52 South. Rep. 367; Co…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence