ST. ANDREWS BAY LUMBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JACK BERNARD, 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 affirmed a judgment, holding that the appellant's failure to properly assign errors precluded review of the evidence sufficiency and the denial of a directed verdict.
No, the sufficiency of the evidence cannot be reviewed because no exception was taken to the denial of the motion for a new trial. Furthermore, the denial of the directed verdict cannot be reviewed because there was no assignment of error questioning that ruling.
“In the case there was a motion for a new trial made, which was denied, but no exception was taken to the ruling, so the sufficiency of the evidence to support the plaintiff’s recovery cannot be reviewed on this writ of error in so far as the denial of the motion for a new trial is concerned.”
Explains why the sufficiency of evidence could not be reviewed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error, St. Andrews Bay Lumber Company, appealed a judgment against it. The company made a motion for a new trial, which was denied, b…
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 Instructed Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
In the case there was a motion for a new trial made, which was denied, but no exception was taken to the ruling, so the sufficiency of the evidence to support the plaintiff’s recovery cannot be reviewed on this writ of error in so far as the denial of the motion for a new trial is concerned. See St. Andrews Bay Lumber Company vs. Mark Bernard, et ah, a companion case this day decided.
The order denying the defendant’s motion for an instructed verdict, which was properly excepted to, cannot be reviewed upon the authority of Warner vs. Goding, 91 Fla. 260, 107 So. 406, because there is no assignment of error which questions the ruling o’f the court in denying the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.
A proper assignment of error in the appellate court is a requisite in the nature of a pleading in the court of review, which is essential to enable the appellate court to review and rectify errors complained of. Davidson vs. Bezant, 132 So. 488.
Errors which are properly assigned have been con-considered by us but present no grounds for reversal, so the judgment must be affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion in the companion case to this one, above referred to.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Ellis, J., concurs specially.
Terrell, J., not participating.
concurring-.—I agree to the affirmance for the reason given in the concurring opinion in the companion case.
[*237] Ellis, J.,
concurring-.—I agree to the affirmance for the reason given in the concurring opinion in the companion case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
H. E. Wolfe Constr. Co., Inc. v. Nila Laure Ellison, 127 Fla. 808 (Fla. 1936)…ealed from. Such judgment, in all other respects, is presumed to have been validly entered and correctly arrived at by due course of legal procedure. Davidson v. Bezant, 101 Fla. 1296, 132 Sou. Rep. 488; St. Andrews Bay Lumber Co. [*822] v. Bernard, 106 Fla. 235, 143 Sou. Rep. 160; Streeter v. State, 89 Fla. 400, 104 Fla. 858. The sole predicate for an assignment of error is an incorrect ruling of the trial judge on some question of evidentiary, procedural or pure law presented to him in due course. Assig…
-
Vaughn v. Smith, 96 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1957)…reversed only for errors presented by the assignments. Red Top Cab & Baggage Co. v. Dorner, 159 Fla. 538, 32 So. 2d 321. The very nature of the pleading in court of review requires a proper assignment of error. St. Andrews Bay Lumber Co. v. Bernard, 106 Fla. 235, 143 So. 160. The function of an assignment of error is to point out the specific error claimed to have been committed by the court below in order that the reviewing court and opposing counsel may see on what point the appellant seeks reversal, and…
-
United States & Republic of Cuba v. Harris & Co. Advertising, Inc., 149 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…ant to the provisions of § 55.44, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. However, no assignment of error was directed to the entry of this order and, therefore, the matter was not adequately preserved for review by this court. See: St. Andrews Bay Lumber Co. v. Bernard, 106 Fla. 235, 143 So. 160; Bowden v. Carter, Fla.1953, 65 So. 2d 871. The doctrine of sovereign immunity is not a new principle of international law, but has been recognized for many years in the relationships between sovereign nations. It is apparent, from a r…
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
- Warner v. Goding, 91 Fla. 260 (Fla. 1926)
- Davidson v. Bezant, 132 So. 488 (Fla. 1931)