A. G. GARZO, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. H. BROPHY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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 reviewed a judgment for a construction company against a property owner for improvements. While affirming the jury's finding of the amount due, the court reversed the judgment regarding attorney's fees, remanding the case for proper adjudication.
The court held that the award of attorney's fees was improper as it was not founded upon evidence and was treated as surplusage in the jury's verdict. However, the jury's finding of the amount due for improvements was legally sufficient.
“There is ample evidence to form a legal basis for the finding as made of the amount due on the improvements and there is nothing' to indicate that the jury were not governed by the evidence in their finding.”
Establishes that the jury's determination of the amount owed for improvements was legally sound.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA construction company sued a property owner, Garzo, to recover for improvements made to Garzo's property. The trial court entered a judgment for the …
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 Harmless Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
This action was brought by the construction company against Garzo to recover for improve ments upon Garzo’s property. There was judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant took writ of error. A number of errors are assigned and urged here, but it will not be necessary to discuss them in detail, since the essentials of the proceedings recognized by the statutes in such cases as to compensation or liens for labor and material have in the main been substantially complied with except in the terms of the. judgment which will be referred to in the conclusion. The pleadings are not fatally defective, and there was apparently no reason for requiring an election between the counts of the declaration. There is ample evidence to form a legal basis for the finding as made of the amount due on the improvements and there is nothing' to indicate that the jury were not governed by the evidence in their finding. Errors if any in the rulings on the admissibility of testimony and in giving and refusing charges are in view of the whole record, harmless. The verdict in favor of the plaintiff for a stated amount “as per bill attached, esentials of the proceedings necognized by the statutes with no attorneys’ fees” is sufficiently definite and responsive to the issues submitted to them. lío question of attorneys’ fees is to be submitted to the jury, and that part of the verdict may be treated as surplusage, as well as the reference in the verdict to the “bill attached” to the pleadings. The statute provides that “If the plaintiff shall prevail, the court shall allow him reasonable attorney’s-fees, to be fixed by the court, not to exceed” stated amounts. Sec. 2218 Geni. Stats, of 1906.
The defendant in error confesses error in that portion of the judgment, awarding attorney’s fee, as not being founded upon evidence.
The judgment is reversed at the cost of the defendant in error and the cause remanded for a proper adjudication as to attorney fees and for the rendering of an appropriate judgment. Chapter 6467, Acts of 1913.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hooker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State OF Fla. ex rel. Mercantile Inv. & Holding Co. v. Honorable George W. Tedder, 150 Fla. 175 (Fla. 1942)…ibition here on March 24, 1942, and now we consider same on rehearing granted. When this Court reverses a judgment it has the power to direct the entry of such judgment as may be proper in law. Section 4640, C.G.L. 1927. Garzo v. Brophy Const. Co., 66 Fla. 607, 64 So. 234. [*177] When we reversed the judgment in this case, (147 Fla. 610, 3 So. 2nd 149) we were of the opinion that the planitiff had introduced evidence of services rendered hut had not produced evidence of the reasonable value of such servic…
-
Clark v. Millard F. Caldwell, 95 Fla. 754 (Fla. 1928)…o enter his decree affirming the judgment of the County Judge of Santa Rosa County refusing to admit the will of the testator to probate. Gray v. First National Bank of Pensacola, 31 Fla. 590, 12 So. 215; Garzov v. J. H. Brophy Construction Company, 66 Fla. 607, 64 So. 234; 4 C .J. 1161, note 91, Text 1161. Ordered and decreed accordingly. Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.…
-
Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Dartha Carter and Ezekiel M. Carter, 69 Fla. 153 (Fla. 1915)…e defendant, or as affecting [*154] merely the amount of the damages. Otherwise the new trial granted might, under Chapter 6467, Acts of 1913, have been limited to the issues relative to the recoverable damages. See Garzo v. J. H. Brophy Const. Co., 66 Fla. 607, 64 South. Rep. 234. The issues relating to liability, contributory negligence and recoverable damages were fully and fairly submitted to the jury and determined in favor of the plaintiff. There was evidence upon which liability could lawfully be p…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence