F. G. MCMULLEN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
A. N. HOOFNAGLE 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 note action, the trial court rendered a verdict for the plaintiff despite substantial proof of the defendant's set-off defense and no proof of payment. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment because the defendant, as plaintiff in error, could not complain of an error that favored him financially.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment because although the record demonstrates error in the trial court's verdict, the defendant as plaintiff in error cannot complain of an error that operated in his financial favor by reducing the plaintiff's recovery.
“The verdict resulted in favor of the plaintiff for an amount for which we can find no basis in the record. The plea of set-off was substantially proven.”
Establishes that the trial verdict lacked evidentiary support and that the defendant's strongest defense was proved.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn action was brought on a note. The defendant filed a plea of set-off and a plea of payment. The plea of set-off was substantially proven at trial. T…
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 Satisfaction Of Debt cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case an action was brought on a note. A plea of set-off and a plea of payment were filed upon 'which issue was joined.. Other pleas were filed, but it appears from the record that the issues presented by the plea of set-off and the plea of payment were the issues upon which the case was tried.
The verdict resulted in favor of the plaintiff for an amount for which we can find no basis in the record. The plea of set-off was' substantially proven. The plea of payment was not proven. There was some pro'of to the effect that the defendant, prior to the institution of the suit, had agreed to transfer and deliver certain shares of stock in a certain corporation to the. plaintiff in satisfaction of the note and that the plaintiff had agreed to accept an assignment of these shares of sto'ck in satisfaction, but there was no proof that the stock was ever transferred and delivered to the plaintiff, or that the plaintiff ever received anything of value in payment of the note.
*17The record shows that the shares of stock which defendant agreed to assign to plaintiff in satisfaction of the note were at the time of the agreement (and so far as the record shows at all times thereafter) hypothecated with a bank to secure a loan from the bank to the corporation and the defendant had no control over such stock and could not cause it to be delivered to plaintiff.
The judgment was in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant for a sum much less than the amount of the claim after deducting the amount of the set-off. Defendant is plaintiff in error here, but, since the error complained of is shown by the record to have been in his favor, he cannot be heard to complain and the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Whitfield, J., concurs in the opinion and judgment.
Terrell and Davis, J.J., dissent.
(Dissenting).—It seems to me that a jury’s verdict in a suit ex contractu, which is not reconcilable with any theory of the case advanced by either plaintiff or defendant, is subject to being set aside on motion of either party dissatisfied with it.
The majority opinion admits that there is no basis for the verdict in the record. This Court has held that where a verdict is fofinded upon a misapplication of the facts, a new trial should be granted. Fla. Fire etc. Ins. Co. vs. Hart, 73 Fla. 970, 75 Sou. Rep. 528. Juries do not obtain a roving commission to render their verdict in haphazard fashion, nor should trial on appellate courts sustain verdicts so rendered, when either party to a verdict which finds no support in the record, objects to it. To do so in this case is for this Court to indulge in an unwarranted guess as to what the jury may have intended, when the best evidence of that intent should have been *18expressed in their verdict. I think a new trial should have been granted to either party who applied for it.
Davis, J.
(Dissenting).—It seems to me that a jury’s verdict in a suit ex contractu, which is not reconcilable with any theory of the case advanced by either plaintiff or defendant, is subject to being set aside on motion of either party dissatisfied with it.
The majority opinion admits that there is no basis for the verdict in the record. This Court has held that where a verdict is fofinded upon a misapplication of the facts, a new trial should be granted. Fla. Fire etc. Ins. Co. vs. Hart, 73 Fla. 970, 75 Sou. Rep. 528. Juries do not obtain a roving commission to render their verdict in haphazard fashion, nor should trial on appellate courts sustain verdicts so rendered, when either party to a verdict which finds no support in the record, objects to it. To do so in this case is for this Court to indulge in an unwarranted guess as to what the jury may have intended, when the best evidence of that intent should have been expressed in their verdict. I think a new trial should have been granted to either party who applied for it.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Timmy Woods Beverly Hills, Ltd. v. Greenwald, 475 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…the evidence and contrary to the law. We agree. The $30,000 damage award is clearly below that which the evidence would support. Generally, a party may not complain of an error in its favor, as Woods appears to be doing here. McMullen v. Hoofnagle, 106 Fla. 16, 142 So. 598 (1932); Limor v. Conli, 424 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Application of such a rule is not appropriate, however, when the damage award is clearly inadequate and the issue of liability is hotly contested. Such circumstances give rise to…
-
Golden v. Harrell, 147 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…than harmed thereby, to successfully complain about it. Basically a party “ * * * cannot complain of errors that are in his favor, or of alleged errors that cause him to lose nothing.” 2 Fla.Juris. Sec. 17, page 312. Also see McMullen v. Hoofnagle, 106 Fla. 16, 142 So. 598 (1932) which held: “ * * * Defendant is plaintiff in error here, but, since the error complained of is shown by the record to have been in his favor, he cannot be heard to complain, and the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered…
-
Edmondson v. Avis Mitchell Swope & Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co., 395 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…e the reimbursement ordered does not represent 50% of what Travelers has paid is unavailing. Edmondson cannot complain of this error because he is not adversely affected, and Travelers has not cross appealed that issue. E. g., McMullen v. Hoofnagle, 106 Fla. 16, 142 So. 598 (1932); Strong v. Clay, 58 So. 2d 435 (Fla.1952); Golden v. Harrell, 147 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); cert. denied 155 So. 2d 150 (Fla.1963). Edmondson’s contention that the trial court erred by denying his petition for attorney’s fe…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hart, 73 Fla. 970 (Fla. 1917)
- Roach v. Keep, 73 Fla. 1048 (Fla. 1917)