JAMES M. CHANCEY AND ROBERT B. LEVINS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
JAMES A. WILLIAMS, 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.
This case reviews a trial court's decision to grant a new trial after a jury awarded a partial verdict. The appellate court affirmed the grant of a new trial, emphasizing the trial judge's discretion when faced with conflicting evidence and a verdict that seemed to split the difference between the parties' claims.
No, the trial court did not err in granting a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the trial judge's discretion to grant a new trial, especially when the jury's verdict appeared to be an arbitrary compromise.
“Such verdict could not have special binding force upon the conscience of the trial judge.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for upholding the trial judge's discretion to grant a new trial when the jury's verdict was questionable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs sued for payment for logs cut for the defendant. The jury awarded a partial verdict, which was exactly half of the plaintiffs' total claim.…
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 After-Discovered Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
This is a writ of error directed to the granting of a new trial.
The plaintiffs declared upon common counts and upon a count for trees cut by them for the defendant at his request. The pleas were payment and that the plaintiffs cut “2385 saw logs at eight cents per log and that' he has paid them one hundred and ninety dollars which is full payment for all logs delivered to or received by him;” issue was joined upon both pleas. 'The plaintiffs admitted this payment but gave evidence as to the delivery and acceptance of a larger number of logs, and secured a partial verdict.
The two plaintiffs each testified that they cut 4743 logs .for the defendant, but neither say that these logs were delivered to or accepted by the defendant. The defendant and two employees testify that only 2385 logs were accepted. The jury, by its verdict, evidently believed neither side. If the plaintiffs’ testimony was correct, the verdict should have been for the total claim, $189.44, while if the defendant’s testimony prevail, there should have been no recovery, and yet the jury gave its verdict for $94.72, cutting the claim exactly in half. Such verdict could not have special binding force upon the conscience of the trial judge.
Under these circumstances the court after the reading of affidavits upon the motion for a new trial, showing that other evidence might be secured, exercised its discretion and determined tO‘ submit the issues to another jury. When a new trial is granted we are not held down to the strict rules governing the showing to be made to secure a new trial upon the ground of after-discovered evidence, where the motion is denied. The power conferred upon us to review the grant of a new trial is a delicate one; and we have heretofore laid down the rules to govern us in its exercise. Farrell v. Solary, 43 Fla. 124, 31 South. Rep. 283; Clary v. Isom, 55 Fla. 384, 45 South Rep. 994; Jones v. Jacksonville Electric Co. 56 Fla. 452, 47 South. Rep. 1.
The order 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
-
Theola Ruff v. Georgia, 67 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1914)…825; Hobbs v. Cheyney, 62 Fla. 214, 56 South. Rep. 554; Connor v. Elliott, 59 Fla. 227, 52 South. Rep. 729; Zackary v. Georgia F. & A. R. Co., 62 Fla. 419, 56 South. Rep. 686; Acosta v. Gingles, 65 Fla. 507, 62 South. Rep. 582; Chancey v. Williams, '56 Fla. 215, 47 South. Rep. 811. Among the grounds of the motion for new trial are specifications that (1) the verdict is contrary to law, to the charge of the court and to the weight of the evidence; (2) the verdict is excessive; (3) the court erred in ruling…
-
Mizell Live Stock Co. v. Garrison A. Pollard, 71 Fla. 192 (Fla. 1916)…ich his order was based. We have examined the transcript of the record and are of the opinion that the order must be affirmed upon the authority of Ruff v. Georgia Southern & Florida Ry. Co., 67 Fla. 224, 64 South. Rep. 782, and Chancey v. Williams, 56 Fla. 215, 47 South. Rep. 811. Order affirmed.…
-
Dunnellon Phosphate Co. v. Crystal River Lumber Co., 63 Fla. 131 (Fla. 1912)…outh. Rep. 825, “Every presumption is in favor of the correctness of rulings made by the trial court, and this presumption of correctness and regularity attaches and applies with peculiar force to orders granting new trials.” In Chancey v. Williams, 56 Fla. 215, 47 South. Rep. 811, we said, “The power conferred upon us to review the grant of- a new trial is a delicate one; and we have heretófore laid down the rules to govern us in its exercise,” and, in support thereof, we cited the folowing authorities: F…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. Jacksonville Elec. Co., 56 Fla. 452 (Fla. 1908)
- Farrell v. Solary, 43 Fla. 124 (Fla. 1901)
- Davis Clary v. Isom, 55 Fla. 384 (Fla. 1908)