J. F. POORE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
STARR PIANO 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 directed verdict, holding that a trial court should not direct a verdict if there is any evidence upon which a jury could lawfully find for the opposing party. The case involved a promissory note and a plea of partial failure of consideration.
Yes, the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff because the defendant presented evidence that at least tended to prove the issue raised in their plea.
“Where any evidence has been submitted upon which the jury could lawfully find for one patty the trial court should not direct the jury to find a verdict for the opposite party.”
Establishes the legal standard for directing a verdict.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Starr Piano Company sued J. F. Poore on a note for a piano and attorney fees. Poore filed a special plea of partial failure of consideration. Afte…
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 Action On A Note cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The piano company brought an action on a note given to the company for balance due on a piano and attorney fee. The defendant filed only a special plea in the nature of a plea of partial failure of consideration, on which plea issue was joined. After introducing the note and evidence of a reasonable attorney fee, the plaintiff rested. The defendant produced evidence which at least tended to prove the issue tendered to and accepted by the payee of the note, but the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff and the defendant took writ of error. Where any evidence has been submitted upon which the jury could lawfully find for one patty the trial court should not direct the jury to find a verdict for the opposite party.
As there was evidence at least tending to prove the issue tendered and accepted, it was error to direct a verdict for the plaintiff. See Hillsborough Grocery Co. v. Leman, 51 Fla. 203, 40 South. Rep. 680; Gunn v. City of Jacksonville, 67 Fla. 40, 64 South. Rep. 435. See Sec. 1465 Gen. Stats.
The judgment is reversed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nell Gravette v. Turner, 77 Fla. 311 (Fla. 1919)…cases, one of delicacy, and it should be cautiously exercised. Gunn v. City of Jacksonville, supra; Logan Coal & Supply Co. v. Hasty, 68 Fla. 539, 67 South. Rep. 72; [*316] Davis v. Drummond, 68 Fla. 471, 67 South. Rep. 99; Poore v. Starr Piano Co., 68 Fla. 425, 67 South. Rep. 99; King v. Cooney-Eckstein Co., 68 Fla. 246, 63 South. Rep. 659; Hammond v. Jacksonville Electric Co., 66 Fla. 145, 63 South. Rep. 709; Starks v. Sawyer, 56 Fla. 596, 47 South. Rep. 513. Even though a verdict should not be directed…
-
Smith v. Smith, 144 Fla. 500 (Fla. 1940)…n many cases, one of delicacy, and it should be cautiously exercised. Gunn v. City of Jacksonville, supra; Logan Coal & Supply Co. v. Hasty, 68 Fla. 539, 67 South. Rep. 72; Davis v. Drummond, 68 Fla. 471, 67 South. Rep. 99; Poore v. Starr Piano Co., 68 Fla. 425, 67 South. Rep. 99; King v. Cooney-Eckstein Co., 66 Fla. 246, 63 South. Rep. 659; Hammond v. Jacksonville Electric Co., 66 Fla. 145, 63 South. Rep. 709; Starks v. Sawyer, 56 Fla. 596, 47 South. Rep. 513.” See Talley v. McCain, 128 Fla. 418, 174 So.…
-
Duval Laundry Co., Inc. v. Reif, 130 Fla. 276 (Fla. 1937)…n many cases, one of delicacy, and it should be cautiously exercised. Gunn v. City of Jacksonville, supra; Logan Coal & Supply Co. v. Hasty, 68 Fla. 539, 67 South. Rep. 72; Davis v. Drummond, 68 Fla. 471, 67 South. Rep. 99; Poore v. Starr Piano Co., 68 Fla. 425, 67 South. Rep. 99; King v. Cooney-Eckstein Co., 66 Fla. 246, 63 South. Rep. 659; Hammond v. Jacksonville Electric Co., 66 Fla. 145, 63 South. Rep. 709; Starks v. Sawyer, 56 Fla. 596, 47 South. Rep. 513.” Assignments 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are each pr…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gunn v. City of Jacksonville, 67 Fla. 40 (Fla. 1914)
- The Hillsborough Grocery Co. v. Leman, 51 Fla. 203 (Fla. 1906)