DAVIS CLARY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. M. ISOM, 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 appellate court affirmed an order granting a new trial, holding that the trial judge did not abuse their discretion. The court clarified the standard of review for orders granting new trials, emphasizing that appellate courts should not interfere unless the evidence clearly preponderates against the verdict.
No, the trial judge did not abuse their discretion in granting a new trial. The appellate court found that the evidence did not preponderate so clearly and palpably in favor of the verdict as to require interference with the trial judge's decision.
“When, however, the trial court sets aside that verdict .and we are called upon to exercise the power conferred by statute, to review that action, the rule is not whether there might not be evidence to support the verdict, but whether that evidence preponderates so clearly and palpably in support of the verdict as to make it affirmatively to appear that the trial judge has.abused the discretion •with which he is vested, or that some settled principle of law has been violated.”
This quote establishes the standard of review for an appellate court when examining a trial court's order granting a new trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court granted a new trial after a jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The case involved a promissory note for mill machinery, with th…
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 Appellate Review Of New Trial Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
—This writ of error is directed to an order granting a new trial, following a verdict for the defendant, and was sued out in evident misconception of the rule governing appellate courts in such cases.
The decisions cited to us are all cases where the trial court having concurred in the verdict of the jury, this court refused to interfere.
When, however, the trial court sets aside that verdict .and we are called upon to exercise the power conferred by statute, to review that action, the rule is not whether there might not be evidence to support the verdict, but whether that evidence preponderates so clearly and palpably in support of the verdict as to make it affirmatively to appear that the trial judge has.abused the discretion •with which he is vested, or that some settled principle of law has been violated. It is not enough that we, had we acted in the first instance, might have reached a different conclusion. Farrell v. Solary, 43 Fla. 124, 31 South. Rep. 283; Allen v. Lewis, 43 Fla. 301, 31 South. Rep. 286. As in the cases cited there has been but one verdict in this. case.
There is no claim that the evidence clearly preponderates in favor of the verdict, but only that there is a conflict.
The case in short is this—the issue was a failure of consideration upon a note given on the sale of .mill machinery, and the main question was whether the purchaser had notice that there was a lien on the machinery and that the sale was subject thereto. Upon this point the defendant himself testified that he had no notice, while three witnesses for the plaintiff testified as to notice. There was also evidence that the market price of the machinery was three thousand dollars while this purchase money note was for eleven hundred dollars.
We cannot therefore find such abuse of discretion in the grant of a new trial as to» call for our interference, and as no settled principle of law appears to have been violated, the order granting a new trial is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Whitfield, J., concur;
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Theola Ruff v. Georgia, 67 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1914)…onflict in the evidence that this court cannot say the trial judge abused his discretion in granting such new trial, his ruling will not be disturbed. Dominquez v. Citizens Bank & Trust Company, 62 Fla. 148, 56 South. Rep. 682; [*237] Clary v. Isom, 55 Fla. 384, 45 South. Rep. 994; Orchard v. C. H. & N. R. Co., 66 Fla. 353, 63 South. Rep. 717. Also see Reddick v. Joseph, 35 Fla. 65, 15 South. Rep. 781; Allen v. Lewis, 43 Fla. 301, 31 South. Rep. 286; Baggett v. Savannah, F. & W. R. Co., 45 Fla. 184, 34 Sou…
-
Harrison v. Carroll H. Frink, 75 Fla. 22 (Fla. 1918)…olated. Ruff v. Georgia, S. & F. R. Co., 67 Fla. 224, 64 South. Rep. 782; Orchard v. Charlotte Harbor & N. R. Co., 66 Fla. 353, 63 South. Rep. 717; Dunnellon Phosphate Co., v. Crystal River Lumber Co., 63 Fla. 131, 58 South. Rep. 786; Clary v. Isom, 55 Fla. 384, 45 South. Rep. 994. No question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court of Record or of the Circuit Court is presented. The order of the Civil Court of Record granting a new trial on the evidence does not show an abuse of discretion or a violation of an…
-
Jones v. Jacksonville Elec. Co., 56 Fla. 452 (Fla. 1908)…denying the new trial, is of itself no reason to the appellate court for reversing an order of the trial judge granting a new trial. Farrell v. Solary, 43 Fla. 124, 31 South. Rep. 283; Allen v. Lewis, 43 Fla. 301, 31 South. Rep. 286; Clary v. Isom, 55 Fla. 384, 45 South. Rep. 994. Section 3148 of the General Statutes provides that a railroad company shall be liable for any damage done to persons * * * by the running of the * * * cars or other machinery of such company, * * * unless the company shall make…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Farrell v. Solary, 43 Fla. 124 (Fla. 1901)
- Allen v. Lewis, 43 Fla. 301 (Fla. 1901)