E. E. ROPES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE FLORIDA FISH & PRODUCE COMPANY, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for the defendant in an ejectment action, finding that the trial court erred by not granting the plaintiff a new trial after he suffered a medical emergency during the proceedings. The court emphasized the importance of allowing a party to properly protect their interests.
Yes, a new trial should have been granted because the plaintiff's incapacitation prevented him from properly protecting his interests, and the court should have adjourned the proceedings to allow for this.
“Under the circumstances disclosed by the record a new trial should have been granted.”
Establishes the court's primary finding regarding the denial of the new trial motion.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a trial where the plaintiff was representing himself in an ejectment action, he suffered a heart attack and became unconscious. After regaining…
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.
Whitfield, C. J.
Ropes brought an action of ejectment against the company. The bill of exceptions shows that at the trial a deed was offered in evidence for the defendant, whereupon the plaintiff said “I claim that this conveys no title” and “Í object.” “Then plaintiff had an attack of heart failure, and became insensible. When he came to he was unfit for business, and the court then instructed the jury to find a verdict for the defen dant, and told the plaintiff to move for a new trial, which he did the next day.” A motion for new trial was made and it was continued by the court. Subsequently another judge of the court was commissioned and he denied the motion for new trial. Under the circumstances disclosed by the record a new trial should have been granted. At the trial when the plaintiff who was conducting his own case, became unconscious, the court may well have adjourned the cause to such time as would have enabled the plaintiff to properly protect his interests so that justice may be done as contemplated by Section 1489 of the General Statutes.
The judgment is reversed and a new trial awarded.
Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur
Taylor, J., absent on account of illness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bacon v. Feigel, 80 Fla. 566 (Fla. 1920)…may “where it may deem it right for the purposes of justice, order an adjournment for such time, and subject to such terms and conditions, as to costs and otherwise, as it may see fit.” §1489, Gen. Stats., 1906. Ropes v. Florida Fish & Produce Co., 64 Fla. 444, 60 South. Rep. 179. In this case no application was made for an appropriate adjournment to enable the plaintiff to present evidence; and counsel specifically stated to the court “that he had no evidence of identity of R. A. Bacon with Robert A. Ba…