J. E. BUTTS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
LILLY MOBLEY, 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 in an ejectment action because the jury verdict was legally insufficient. The verdict failed to comply with a statute requiring specific details about the estate and land description.
Yes, the verdict was fatally defective because it did not comply with the statutory requirements for verdicts in ejectment actions.
“A verdict for the plaintiff shall state the quantity of the estate of the plaintiff, and describe the land by its metes and bounds, by the number of the lot or other certain description.”
This quote states the statutory requirement for a valid verdict in an ejectment action.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn an ejectment action to recover possession of land, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, stating she was entitled to possession and awarding…
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, J.
In an action of ejectment, to recover possession of described land under claim of title, a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff as follows:
“We the jury find for the plaintiff and that she is entitled to the possession of the property described in the declaration in this cause. We further find that the plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of $35.00 so say we all.” Judgment for the plaintiff was rendered on this verdict. One of the grounds for the motion for new trial which was denied is that the verdict is contrary to law. Qii writ of error taken by the defendant the order denying a new trial is assigned as error. Section 1970 of the General Statutes of 1906, relating to the action of ejectment provides that: “A verdict for the plaintiff shall state the quantity of the estate of the plaintiff, and describe the land by its metes and bounds, by the number of the lot or other certain description.”
The verdict being fatally defective in view of the positive requirements of the statute, it cannot be regarded as an immaterial or harmless error. See Ayers v. Pullan, -Fla.-, 65 South. Rep. 869.
The judgment is reversed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor and Hocker, J. J., concur. Cockrell, J., absent by reason of illness in his family.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Holstun & Son v. Embry, 124 Fla. 554 (Fla. 1936)…nothing exists to indicate that the jury were influenced by considerations outside the evidence. Daniels v. State, 82 Fla. 387, 90 South. Rep. 159; Fla. East Coast Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 93 Fla. 30, 111 South. Rep. 525; Welles v. Bryant, 68 Fla. 113, 66 South. Rep. 562; Powell v. State, 93 Fla. 756, 112 South. Rep. 608; [*564] McMurray v. Basnett, 18 Fla. 609; Alexander v. Rhine, 78 Fla. 313, 82 South. Rep. 831. Trial courts have a liberal discretion in granting new trials. As said once, almost complete discretio…
-
The City of Jacksonville v. Glover, 69 Fla. 701 (Fla. 1915)…, unless it appears that there was no substantial evidence to support the finding or that upon the whole evidence the verdict is clearly wrong or that the jury were not governed by the evidence in making their finding. Welles v. Bryant, 68 Fla. 113, 66 South. Rep. 562. It appears that the deceased and another laborer were directed by their superior to move ladder hooks that were resting on the coping at the top of a building that was a part of the electric plant of the city. In doing this the deceased came in co…
-
W. B. Harbeson Lumber Co. v. Duncan L. Anderson and Anna Anderson, 102 Fla. 731 (Fla. 1931)…Fla. 463, 92 So. 277. A new trial should not be granted for insufficiency of the evidence where the entire evidence does not show that the verdict is clearly wrong, or that the jury were not governed by the evidence. Welles v. Bryant, 68 Fla. 113, 66 So. 562. On the other hand a verdict without supporting evidence' will be set aside on proper motion. Florida Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Hart, 73 Fla. 970, 75 So. 528; Petroutsa v. H. C. Shrader Co., 76 Fla. 574, 80 So. 486. Where there is conflicting ev…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence