THE PEACE RIVER PHOSPHATE MINING COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. J. SINGLETON, 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 in favor of a defendant in an attachment case, finding no reversible error despite assigned errors regarding evidence and jury instructions.
The court held that regardless of any alleged errors in testimony or jury instructions, the jury could not have reached a different verdict based on the undisputed facts.
“In this case plaintiff in error sued out an attachment in the Circuit Court of DeSoto county against the defendant in error, wherein the affiant in his-, affidavit stated he had reason to believe that the said defendant would fraudulently part with his property before judgment could be obtained against him.”
Describes the initiation of the lawsuit and the basis for the attachment.
Previewing 1 of 4 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff initiated an attachment proceeding, alleging the defendant would fraudulently part with property before judgment. The defendant traverse…
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 Jury Charge cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In this case plaintiff in error sued out an attachment in the Circuit Court of DeSoto county against the defendant in error, wherein the affiant in his-, affidavit stated he had reason to believe that the said defendant would fraudulently part with his property before judgment could be obtained against him. There-was a traverse by the defendant and a trial of the same before a jury, and a verdict and judgment for the defendant. There are quite a number of assignments of error based on the admission and rejection of testimonv and the charge of the court. We have carefully examined the record, and irrespective of the errors assigned, we do not see how the jury, acting upon the undisputed facts, clould have arrived at a different verdict from the one rendered. Our conclusion is that there is no reversible error in the record, and it is therefore considered and ordered that the judgment of the Circuit Court be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill,' JJ., concur. Shackleford, C. J., and Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur in the opinion.