PRESTON B. BIRD, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JEFFERSON COUNTY, 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.
Preston Bird sued Jefferson County for damages to a hired mule allegedly caused by the county's failure to water it as agreed. The trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer to the evidence after Bird's case-in-chief, rendering judgment for the county. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the demurrer was improper because the defendant's admission of evidence in question-and-answer form rather than as stated facts made it impossible to determine what facts were actually admitted.
The demurrer was improperly sustained because the defendant's admission of testimony in question-and-answer form, rather than as clearly stated facts with proper inferences, created inconsistencies and contradictions that made it impossible to determine what facts were actually admitted, rendering the demurrer invalid.
“It is not the province of such demurrer to bring before the court an investigation of the facts in dispute. It is intended to admit and state the facts which the other party attempts to prove, and not merely the testimony which may conduce to prove them.”
Establishes the proper function and scope of a demurrer to evidence—to admit facts, not raw testimony
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBird hired a mule to Jefferson County under an agreement that the county would water the animal. The mule died, which Bird attributed to the county's …
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 Reasonable Inferences From Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Shackleford, J.
— The plaintiff in error brought an action against Jefferson County, in the State of Florida, seeking to recover damages for the value of a mule, which had been hired by the plaintiff to the defendant and the death of which -is alleged to have been occasioned by the failure of the defendant to water such mule, in accordance with the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. Pleas were filed by the defendant and the case came on for trial before a jury. At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence the defendant interposed a demurrer thereto, which was sustained by the court and judgment rendered by the court in favor of the defendant. This judgment is brought here for review. The only point presented for determination is as to the correctness of the ruling sustaining the demurrer. In reading the transcript of the record, we find that all of the evidence adduced is set forth in the record proper in the form of questions and answers, the defendant stating that it “admits as true all of the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions and inferences to be drawn therefrom.” A demurrer to the evidence is in the nature of a pleading and, as we have several times held, such demurrer, the joinder therein and the ruling thereon form part of the record proper. Loeffler v. City of West Tampa, 55 Fla. 276, 46 South. Rep. 426; Ray v. Pollock & Bernheimer, 56 Fla. 530, 47 South. Rep. 940; Bell v. Niles, 61 Fla. 114, 55 South. Rep.
392. It is not proper to set forth on the record all the evidence adduced, in the form of questions and answers, or even in narrative form. As we said in Mugge v. Jackson, 50 Fla. 235, 39 South. Rep. 157, “It is not the province of such demurrer to bring before the court an investigation of the facts in dispute. It is intended to admit and state the facts which the other party attempts to prove, and not merely the testimony which may conduce to prove them. It is intended also to admit whatever the jury may reasonably infer from the evidence.” See also Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 51 Fla. 324, 41 South. Rep. 28, and authorities therein cited. It is impossible by reason of inconsistencies and even contradictions in the evidence, to say what facts are admitted. See Comforter v. City of Apalachicola, decided here at the present term.
Judgment reversed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hooker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sullivan v. Brown, 67 Fla. 133 (Fla. 1914)…fler v. City of West Tampa, 55 Fla. 276, 46 South. Rep. 426; Knight v. Empire Land Co., 55 Fla. 301, 45 South. Rep. 1025; Morrison v. McKinnon, 12 Fla. 552; Wilkinson v. Pensacola & A. R. Co., 35 Fla. 82, 17 South. Rep. 71; Bird v. Jefferson County, 63 Fla. 88, 58 South. Rep. 28; Comforter v. City of Apalachicola, 63 Fla. 113, 58 South. Rep. 28; 6 Enc. Pl & Pr 453; 7 Standard Encyclopedia of Procedure 4 et seq. The transcript does not show that a demurrer to the evidence was properly presented. There is…
Authorities Cited
- Bell v. Niles, 61 Fla. 114 (Fla. 1911)
- Mugge v. Jackson, 50 Fla. 235 (Fla. 1905)
- The Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Lum Wright, 51 Fla. 324 (Fla. 1906)
- Gustave Loeffler v. City of W. Tampa, 55 Fla. 276 (Fla. 1908)
- Ray v. Pollock, 56 Fla. 530 (Fla. 1908)