F. J. WEBB, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. P. BROWN, 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.
Webb sued Brown for damages from an alleged malicious assault and battery, claiming $20,000 but receiving a $37.50 verdict. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to preserve objections to the defendant's mitigating testimony and did not adequately show error in the trial court's handling of the case.
The court affirmed the judgment, holding that Webb failed to properly preserve objections to the defendant's testimony, which was offered for mitigation of damages rather than justification, and that no reversible errors appear in the record where the trial judge did not certify that all evidence was included in the bill of exceptions.
“As the trial judge did not certify that the bill of exceptions contains all the evidence adduced at the trial, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict cannot be considered here.”
Establishes the procedural requirement that prevented appellate review of whether verdict was supported by evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWebb brought an action against Brown for assault and battery, alleging he suffered bodily pain, incurred $35 in medical expenses, and sustained $12 in…
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 Provocation cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
— F. J. Webb brought an action against J. P. Brown to recover damages for an alleged malicious assault and battery, because of which it is alleged the plaintiff suffered bodily pain and spent $35.00, dollars for medical attention and had his clothes injured to the value -of' $12.00. Damages were claimed in $20,-000.00. A trial was had on a plea of not guilty, and a verdict and judgment rendered for $37.50. Plaintiff made á motion for new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law, contrary to the evidence, and contrary to the charge of the court. The motion was denied and an exception taken. A writ of error was taken by the plaintiff who assigns as error the overruling of the motion for new trial, and the denial of “plaintiff’s motion to exclude defendant’s testimony of justification and provocation.”
As the trial judge did not certify that the bill of exceptions contains all the evidence adduced at the trial, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict cannot be considered here. See Special Rules 1 and 3 of Supreme Court Rules; Melrose Mfg. Co. v. Kennedy, 59 Fla. 312, 51 South. Rep. 595; Albritton v. State, 54 Fla. 6, 44 South Rep. 745; Pope v. State, 56 Fla. 81, 47 South. Rep. 487.
The charges of the court were not excepted to when given or in the motion for new trial, and it is not contended that they are erroneous. There is nothing shown in the record or suggested in the briefs to indicate that the verdict is contrary to law or to the charge of the court. It is contended that the amount awarded as damages is inadequate, but as it is not shown that all the evidence is before the court, this question is not presented so it can be considered here. Even on the record before ns there is at least some evidence to justify the verdict of the jury and this may be sufficient.
The testimony objected to was offered for the stated purpose of showing circumstances in mitigation of damages and not as justification, therefore it was not subject justification.” There was no plea of justification and to the objection “that it tended to show provocation and testimony tending to show justification should '.¡uve been excluded upon proper objection or motion. If any of the testimony adduced did tend to show justification there was apparently no motion to strike it. In a civil aciiiui to recover damages for an assault and battery, undei i plea of not guilty, circumstances may be shown in evidence in mitigation of punitive damages, but not of actual damages. Mitchell v. Gamble, 140 Ala. 316, 37 South. Rep. 290. This action was for punitive damages as well as for compensation for actual damages, and no reversible errors are made to appear. The judgment is affirmed.
Taylor, Shackleford, Cockrell and Rocker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Steele v. State, 85 Fla. 57 (Fla. 1923)…Rep. 876; Florida Land Inv. Co. v. Williams, 83 Fla. 251, 91 South. Rep. 177. Since the bill of exceptions does not contain all of the evidence this question cannot be considered. Special Rule 1, Rules of Circuit Courts—Law Actions; Webb. v. Brown, 63 Fla. 306, 58 South. Rep. 27; Melrose Mfg. Co. v. Kennedy, 59 Fla. 312, 51 South. Rep 595; Pope v. State, 56 Fla. 81, 47 South. Rep. 487. In the brief and in the oral' argument of the case here it was contended that charges given by the court to the Jury are…
-
Loomis v. Dubois, 82 Fla. 293 (Fla. 1921)…ly part of the evidence is contained in the transcript of the record the question of whether the decree entered is supported by the proof is not open for consideration by this Court. Acosta v. Gingles, 65 Fla. 507, 62 South. Rep. 582; Webb v. Brown, 63 Fla. 306, 58 South. Rep. 27; Jacksonville, Tampa etc. Ry. v. Neff, 36 Fla. 584, 18 South. Rep. 765; Pickett v. Bryan, 34 Fla. 38, 15 South. Rep. 681. From the averments of the answer and the evidence it appears that prior to the institution of the suit some…
-
Roberts v. Firman Smith, 72 Fla. 537 (Fla. 1916)…the trial judge did not certify that the bill of exceptions contains all the evidence adduced at the trial, I am precluded from considering the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, even if T felt inclined to do so. See Webb v. Brown, 63 Fla. 306, 58 South. Rep. 27, which cites prior decisions of this court. I am of the opinion that the trial court erred in excluding some of the profEered evidence of the defendant. What I have said is sufficient to indicate my views. See Williams v. Richard…
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
- Pope v. State, 56 Fla. 81 (Fla. 1908)
- Albritton v. State, 54 Fla. 6 (Fla. 1907)
- Melrose Mfg. Co. v. Kennedy, 59 Fla. 312 (Fla. 1910)