MARIANNA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
M. F. BOONE, 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.
Marianna Manufacturing sued M.F. Boone for breach of contract on two counts. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff on the first count only, and the defendant challenged whether judgment could be entered on a partial verdict covering only one of two counts submitted to the jury.
A jury verdict that expressly finds for the plaintiff on one count and makes no mention of another count is legally sufficient. The silence as to the unmentioned count constitutes an effective finding for the defendant on that count, and judgment may properly be entered on such a verdict.
“The legal effect of the verdict is a finding for the plaintiff in the amount stated therein on the first count and a finding for the defendant on the second count.”
Establishes the court's holding that a silent count in a verdict operates as an implicit finding for the defendant on that count.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarianna Manufacturing brought a breach of contract action containing three counts. A demurrer was sustained as to the third count. The first count cl…
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 Partial Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
—The declaration wap for breach of contract and contained. three counts. A demurrer was sustained as to the third count. The first count claimed damages in $366.67, and interest, and the second count claimed damage in $400.00, and interest. Pleas to the merits were filed to the first and second counts and issue was joined thereon.
At the trial, the following verdict was rendered: “We the jury find for the plaintiff under the first count of the declaration^ and assess the ’damages at $248.77 1-3; judgment was rendered for the amount so found and costs.
The defendant took writ of error and one of the errors assigned is the entering of judgment for the plaintiff upon the verdict herein.
It is contended solely that “the court should not have entered a judgment upon the verdict because it is a partial finding of only one of the issues before the jury, but should have granted a new trial and submitted the case to another jury that the entire case might be determined and disposed of.”
Issues were joined on the pleas to the merits of each of the two counts of the declaration and the verdict is for the plaintiff on the first count, with no reference in the verdict to the second count.
The legal effect of the verdict is a finding for the plaintiff in the amount stated therein on the first count and a finding for the defendant on the. second count. Although the declaration contains two counts to which pleas to the merits were filed and issue joined upon all the pleas the verdict returned fully responded to all the issues tried, as it is an express and affirmative finding in favor of the plaintiff_on one specified count of the declaration for an amount less than was claimed in that count without mentioning the other count which in law is an effectual finding for the defendant on the count not mentioned in the verdict. See Shaw v. Bemhart, 17 Ind. 183; Central Union Tel. Co. v. Fehring, 146 Ind. 189, 45 N. E. Rep. 64; Spencer v. New York & N. C. R. Co., 62 Conn, 242, 25 Atl. Rep. 350; Smith v. State, 40 Fla. 203, 23 South Rep. 854; Green v. State, 17 Fla. 669.
Where the verdict is in effect for the defendant on any one or more of the counts of a declaration the costs should be taxed as the statute and rules direct.
It does not appear that the defendant took any steps before the jury was discharged to' have the verdict expressly state the finding as to' the second Count. The objection comes too late to the form of the. verdict which by implication of law finds for the defendant on the second count and is sufficient under the first count to sustain the judgment.
The judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and. Cockrell, J., concur. Taylor, 'Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. Ivey, 93 Fla. 387 (Fla. 1927)…’ In Rentz v. Live Oak Bank, 61 Fla. 403, 55 Sou. 856, the Court say: “All fair intendments consistent with the record should be indulged in favor of a verdict that is responsive to the issues made by the pleadings.” In Marianna Mfg. Co. v. Boone, 55 Fla. 289, 45 Sou. 754, it is held, “Objections to the form of the verdict should be made before the jury is discharged.” In Robinson v. State, 45 Fla. 94, 34 Sou. 294, and in O ’Neal v. State, 54 Fla. 96, 44 Sou. 940, it is held that “the record in the cause…
-
Folta v. Joseph Bolton, M.D., 493 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1986)…ch could arise, out of the same transaction was a significant factor in our conclusion in Hendry Tractor that this Court’s 1908 interpretation of the then applicable cost statute, section 1736, Florida Statutes (1906), in Marianna Mfg. Co. v. Boone, 55 Fla. 289, 45 So. 754 (1908) was outdated. 432 So. 2d at 1317. In Marianna Mfg. Co., we concluded that “[w]here the verdict is in effect for the defendant on any one or more of the counts of a declaration the costs should be taxed as the statute and rules dir…
-
Hendry Tractor Co. v. Fernandez, 432 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 1983)…trial judge in permitting Hendry Tractor to, in effect, recover the amount of the cost it expended in successfully defending against the breach of warranty counts. It appears to me that this case is clearly controlled by Marianna Mfg. Co. v. Boone, 55 Fla. 289, 45 So. 754 (1908), wherein the Supreme Court of Florida held that where a jury found in favor of a plaintiff on one count of the complaint without mentioning the other counts its silence was an effectual finding in favor of the defendant and theref…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Claiborn Green v. State, 17 Fla. 669 (Fla. 1880)
- Smith v. State, 40 Fla. 203 (Fla. 1898)