MANATEE COUNTY STATE BANK, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
BEN F. WADE AND VICTOR NETTLES, PARTNERS AS THE BEN F. WADE PACKING COMPANY, DEFENDANTS 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.
Manatee County State Bank sought review of a judgment entered in a bench trial. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that a party challenging the sufficiency of evidence in a bench trial must first make a motion for new trial in the trial court, have it denied, and properly preserve the exception by bill of exceptions—the same procedural requirements that apply to jury trials.
No. Even in bench trials without a jury, a party must make a motion for new trial on grounds of insufficient evidence, have the trial court rule on it, and preserve the exception by proper bill of exceptions in order for an appellate court to review the sufficiency of the evidence.
“Questions as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding are presented to the trial court by means of motions for new trials in actions at law.”
Establishes that sufficiency of evidence challenges must be presented through a motion for new trial procedure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case was tried by the Judge of the Circuit Court for Manatee County without a jury, resulting in judgment for the plaintiffs. The defendant took w…
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 Bill Of Exceptions cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In .an action at law tried by the Judge of the Circuit Court for Manatee County without a jury, judgment was entered for the plaintiffs. The defendant excepted to the judgment and took writ of error. No motion for new trial was made, and no' errors are assigned except on the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding and judgment.
Questions as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding are presented to the trial court by means of motions for new trials in actions at law.
At common law the sufficiency of the evidence to' sustain the finding and judgment in an action at law Was in general not reviewable by an appellate court. Motions for new trial upon the ground that the evidence did not sustain the finding were addressed to the discretion of the 'trial court without review. See Carter v. Bennett, 4 Fla. 283; Allen v. Lewis, 38 Fla. 115, 20 South. Rep. 821. Sections 1693, 1694 of the General Statutes, first enacted in 1853, authorized a review by bill of exceptions of motions for new trials denied where exceptions thereto were duly preserved. It has been repeatedly held that in order for the appellate court to review the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict or finding there must be a motion for new trial upon the ground duly presented, denied and excepted fo in the trial court and all brought by proper bill of exceptions to' the appellate court with appropriate assignments of error duly argued. See Dupuis v. Thompson, 16 Fla. 69, text 73; Davis v. State, 47 Fla. 27, 36 South. Rep. 170; Consumers’ Electric Light & St. R. Co. v. Smith, 43 Fla. 52, 29 South. Rep. 445; Knox v. Barnett, 18 Fla. 594; Coleman v. State, 43 Fla. 543, 30 South. Rep. 684; McDonald v. State, 46 Fla. 149, 35 South. Rep. 72; Jacksonville Electric Co. v. Adams, 50 Fla. 429, 39 South. Rep. 183; 14 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 848; 29 Cyc. 738; Touse v. Consolidated R. & P. Co., 29 Utah 95, 80 Pac. 506; 4 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cases, 299.
The fact that the trial was by the judge without a jury does not dispense with the necessity for a motion for new trial, a ruling thereon and an exception to the ruling, .all duly presented by proper bill of exceptions, for the reason that questions as to' the sufficiemy of the evidence to sustain a finding can only be reviewed by the appellate court by motion for new trial embraced in a bill of exceptions in the manner provided by the statute, such review 'as to'the sufficiency of the evidence not being permissible tO' all at common law. Other matters in pais may be presented to the appellate court by bill of exceptions without a motion for new trial. See Williams v. La Penotere, 32 Fla. 491, 14 South. Rep. 157.
The statutes and rules of practice in this State contemplate the making of motions for new trials in cases tried by -the judge without a jury and by referee as well as in jury trials.
Chapter 5403, Acts of 1905, relating to motions for new trials in'civil cases does not dispense with motions for new trials in any case where they are properly required.
Findings and judgments are not matters in pais; and the exception to the finding and judgment in this case does not dispense with the necessity for a motion for new trial to present .question as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding and judgment.
The judgment is affirmed.
. Shackleford, C. J., and Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur. Taylor, HIocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baxley v. State, 72 Fla. 228 (Fla. 1916)…that ground should be duly presented to and acted upon by the trial court, which motion and the order made thereon and the exception taken should be evidenced to the appellate court by a proper bill of exceptions. Manatee County State Bank v. Wade, 56 Fla. 492, 47 South. Rep. 927; Thomas Bros. Co. v. Price & Watson, 56 Fla. 854, 48 South. Rep. 262; Jacksonville Electric Co. v. Adams, 50 Fla. 429, 39 South. Rep. 183; Andrews v. State, 65 Fla. 377, 61 South. Rep. 975; Johnson v. State, 53 Fla. 42, 43 South.…
-
E. E. Alley Co. & Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Ball, 102 Fla. 1034 (Fla. 1931)…ed in the court below before the court without a jury, it seems to be recognized in this State that the same procedure should be followed on such a trial as would be applicable if a jury was present. In Manatee County State Bank v. Wade Packing Co., 56 Fla. 492, 47 So. 927, it was held by this Court that the fact that the trial was by the judge without a jury and that the finding and judgment were excepted to does not dispense with the necessity of a motion for a new trial to present in the appellate court…
-
Fla. Power Co. v. Cason, 79 Fla. 619 (Fla. 1920)…the motion for new trial. See. 1693, Gen. Stats., 1906, Compiled Laws, 1914; Thomas Bros. Co. v. Price & Watson, 56 Fla. 854, 48 South. Rep. 262; Jacksonville Electric Co. v. Adams, 50 Fla. 429, 39 South. Rep. 183; Manatee County State Bank v. Wade, 56 Fla. 492, 47 South. Rep. 927; Hoodless v. Jernigan, 51 Fla. 211, 41 South. Rep. 194; Andrews v. State, 64 Fla. [*624] 377, 61 South. Rep. 975; Henry v. Spitler, 67 Fla. 146, 54 South. Rep. 745. It does not appear' from the evidence that the land has been re…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Jacksonville Elec. Co. v. Adams, 50 Fla. 429 (Fla. 1905)
- Farish Carter v. Archibald T. Bennett, 4 Fla. 283 (Fla. 1852)
- Risden McDonald v. State, 46 Fla. 149 (Fla. 1903)
- Dupuis v. Thompson, 16 Fla. 69 (Fla. 1877)
- Allen v. Lewis, 38 Fla. 115 (Fla. 1896)
- Williams v. LaPenotiere, 32 Fla. 491 (Fla. 1893)
- Coleman v. State, 43 Fla. 543 (Fla. 1901)
- Knox v. Barnett, 18 Fla. 594 (Fla. 1882)
- The Consumers Elec. Light & St. R.R. Co. v. Smith, 43 Fla. 52 (Fla. 1901)