THE SKINNER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
E. E. DOUVILLE, 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.
In this third appeal of a dispute over commissions for procuring a purchaser for corporate property, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a $12,500 judgment in favor of Douville against Skinner Manufacturing Company. The Court found that any technical errors in jury instructions and evidence admission were harmless given the clear evidence supporting liability.
The Court affirmed the judgment of $12,500 for Douville, finding that any errors in evidence admission or jury instructions were harmless given the ample evidence supporting liability, and that the judgment as entered accords with the declaration since no interest was actually awarded despite language suggesting otherwise.
“Errors now assigned on the admission of evidence and on charges given or refused, are technical and not fundamental, and even if well taken are harmless in view of the judgment rendered, the evidence being of such a nature as to require a judgment for the amount included therein if liability was shown.”
Establishes the harmless error doctrine and that technical errors do not warrant reversal when evidence clearly supports the judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDouville procured a purchaser for property belonging to the Skinner Manufacturing Company and sought compensation for his services. The jury returned …
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 Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This is the third time a writ of error has been taken to a judgment in favor of Douville for services in procuring a purchaser for property of the corporation. Skinner v. Douville, 54 Fla. 251, 44 South. Rep. 1014; 57 Fla. 180, 49 South. Rep. 125.
Errors now assigned on the admission of evidence and on charges given or refused, are technical and not fundamental, and even if well taken are harmless in view of the judgment rendered, the evidence being of such a nature as to require a judgment for the amount included therein if liability was shown. As there was ample evidence to sustain a verdict in favor of the plaintiff an affirmative charge for the defendant was properly refused.
In an amendment to the motion for .a new trial, a ground that the court erred in charging the jury if they find for the plaintiff the verdict should be for “damages at $12,500.00, with interest from the date of bringing suit,” and another ground that the verdict is in excess of the amount claimed in the declaration, were added, and the order overruling the motion for new trial was excepted to and is assigned and argued as error. • The verdict and judgment are as follows:
‘We the jury find for the plaintiff the sum of Twelve thousand & Five hundred dollars with interest from date of suit, — John Marich, Foreman.’
It is therefore considered by the Court that the Plaintiff E. E. Douville do have and recover of and from said defendant the Skinner Manufacturing Company, the said sum of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Dollars as principal and the further sum of--Dollars as interest, together with his costs herein expended and now here taxed at Eighteen & 58/100 dollars by the Clerk.
It is therefore further considered by the Court that the Plaintiff do have execution therefor to be levied of the goods, chattels, lands and tenements of the Defendant.
Pensacola, Fla., April 22nd, 1910.’
Even if there was error in the charge and in the verdict awarding “interest from date of suit,” no interest is included in the judgment, and the amount of the judgment being only $12,500.00, with no judgment for any interest whatever, the judgment accords with the declaration which “claims $12,500.00.” That portion of the judgment which reads “and the further sum of-dollars as interest” is mere surplusage and awards no interest whatever. The plaintiff below took no writ of error and does not complain of the character of the judgment as entered.
The judgment is for $12,500.00 and costs and as such it is hereby affirmed. Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur;
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. Ivey, 93 Fla. 387 (Fla. 1927)…is held “A new trial will not be granted, because of the admission of illegal evidence to prove a fact which was fully established by legal evidence, it being clear that the verdict was not influenced thereby.” See also Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Douville, 61 Fla. 429, 54 Sou. 810. The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed. Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, J., and Campbell and Lewis, Circuit Judges, concur. Brown, J., disqualified. Terrell and Strum, J. J., not participating.…
-
Tampa & Jacksonville Ry. Co. v. Crawford, 67 Fla. 77 (Fla. 1914)…ct the witness, and as his testimony was of little materiatlity the admission-of the letter could do no real harm. A judgment will not be reversed for harmless errors in rulings on the admissi [*82] bility of testimony. Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Douville, 61 Fla. 429, 54 South. Rep. 810. It is insisted that the verdict is contrary to the evidence. While the legal effect of evidence is a question of law to be passed upon by the court when properly presented, the credibility and probative force of conflicting tes…
-
City of Jacksonville v. Vaughn, 92 Fla. 339 (Fla. 1926)…iven or refused, are technical and not funda [*344] mental, and may fairly be regarded as harmless in view of the ease shown by the entire record, such assigned errors will not cause a reversal of the judgment. Skinner Manufacturing Co. v. Douville, 61 Fla. 429, 54 South. Rep. 810. Where it appears from the whole record that an alleged misleading charge could not reasonably have influenced the verdict to the injury of the complaining party, a new trial should not be granted. G. S. & F. Ry. Co., 63 Fla. 15…
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
- The Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Douville, 57 Fla. 180 (Fla. 1909)
- Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Douville, 54 Fla. 251 (Fla. 1907)