E. D. HOBBS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JOHN K. CHEYNEY, 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.
Hobbs sued Cheyney for unpaid commissions from procuring a land purchaser, but a jury verdict in his favor was set aside when the trial judge granted a motion for new trial, finding the verdict unsupported by the evidence and that the jury disregarded instructions on contract formation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a circuit court's grant of a motion for new trial is presumed proper absent clear abuse of discretion.
The trial court properly granted the motion for new trial. The court affirmed the judgment below, holding that where a motion for new trial is granted by a circuit court, there is a presumption that it was properly granted, and no abuse of discretion appears from the record.
“Where a motion for a new trial is granted by the Circuit Court the presumption is, that it was properly granted.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard of review—that a trial court's grant of a new trial motion is presumed proper absent clear abuse of discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHobbs claimed Cheyney agreed to pay him commissions for finding a purchaser for certain lands. Cheyney placed the lands in Hobbs's hands for sale but …
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 Binding Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
Hocker, J.
— The plaintiff in error sued the defendant in error in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County for commissions which plaintiff alleges was due him by the defendant for procuring a purchaser • for certain lands placed by the latter in the hands of the former for sale, but defendant declined to carry out the agreement made with the plaintiff. The action is based on the alleged breach of this agreement. On the trial there was a verdict for the plaintiff. A motion for a new trial was made containing several grounds, which motion was granted. The trial Judge states in granting the motion that he did not think the verdict was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence, and that the jury did not regard the instructions as to the necessary constituents of a binding contract.
There was no substantial testimony as to the alleged agreement between the parties, except that of the parties themselves, and they are in conflict as to whether the alleged agreement or contract was ever made.
In support of the ground of the newly discovered evidence, an affidavit was filed tending to contradict in one particular the testimony of the plaintiff. We can discover no such preponderance of the weight of the evidence as would show an abuse of discretion by the trial judge in granting the motion.
Where a motion for a new trial is granted by the Circuit Court the presumption is, that it was properly granted. Farrell v. Solary, 43 Fla. 124, Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Wade, 49 Fla. 179, 38 South. Rep. 49; Allen v. Lewis, 43 Fla. 301, 31 South. Rep. 286; Jones v. Jacksonville Electric Co., 56 Fla. 452, 47 South. Rep. 1; Clary v. Isom, 55 Fla, 384, 45 South Rep 994; Tampa Water Works Co. v. Mugge, 60 Fla. 263, 53 South. Rep. 943. The judgment below is affirmed.
Taylor and Parkhill, J. J., concur;
Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700 (Fla. 1917)…v. Hardaway, 66 Fla. 177, 63 South. Rep. 702; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Wade, 49 Fla. 179, 38 South. Rep. 49; Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Spencer, 46 Fla. 255, 35 South. Rep. 73; Acosta v. Gingles, 65 Fla. 507, 62 South. Rep. 582; Hobbs v. Cheyney, 62 Fla. 214, 56 South. Rep. 554; Connor v. Elliott, 59 Fla. 227, 52 South. Rep. 729. While it is the proper function and province of the jury to compare and weigh complicated and contradictory evidence of facts, and to render their verdict thereon, .it is at t…
-
Theola Ruff v. Georgia, 67 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1914)…& W. R. Co., 45 Fla. 184, 34 South. Rep. 564; Citizens’ Bank & Trust Co. v. Spencer, 46 Fla. 255, 35 South. Rep. 73; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Wade, 49 Fla. 179, 38 South. Rep. 49; Hainlin v. Budge, 56 Fla. 342, 47 South. Rep. 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.…
-
McMillan v. Nelson, 5 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 1942)…k the verdict is sustained by a preponderance of the evidence, and grants the motion, and no such preponderance of the evidence appears as would show an abuse of the judge's discretion, his ruling will not be held reversible error. Hobbs v. Cheyney, 62 Fla. 214,56 So. 554; Acosta v. Gingles, 65 Fla. 507, 62 So. 582; Bishop v. Taylor, 41 Fla. 77, 25 So. 287; Aberson v. A.C.L. R. Co.,68 Fla. 196, 67 So. 44; Dominguez v. Citizens Bank, etc., Co.,62 Fla. 148, 56 So. 682; Ruff v. Georgia, Southern etc. R. Co.,…
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
- Jones v. Jacksonville Elec. Co., 56 Fla. 452 (Fla. 1908)
- Tampa Water Works Co. v. Mugge, 60 Fla. 263 (Fla. 1910)
- Farrell v. Solary, 43 Fla. 124 (Fla. 1901)
- The Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Wade, 49 Fla. 179 (Fla. 1905)
- Davis Clary v. Isom, 55 Fla. 384 (Fla. 1908)
- Allen v. Lewis, 43 Fla. 301 (Fla. 1901)