ARCADIA CITRUS GROWERS ASSOCIATION, A CORPORATION, AS RECEIVER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
SUPERVISORS, INC., A FLORIDA 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.
This is the second appeal of a replevin suit over fruit possession. The trial court granted a new trial after a jury verdict favored the defendant, and the Florida Supreme Court affirms that order, finding the jury instructions were confusing and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
The court affirms the order granting a new trial, holding that an appellate court will not reverse an order granting a new trial unless it clearly appears that judicial discretion has been abused resulting in injustice or that the law has been violated.
“The language used in the charges shows that the trial court was somewhat confused and did not state the proposition of law attempted to be stated so clearly that he, in considering the same later, could not say that a jury might not have been confused and mislead thereby.”
Establishes the basis for affirming the grant of new trial—the jury instructions were confusing and potentially misleading
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArcadia Citrus Growers Association was appointed Receiver in a mortgage foreclosure suit by Duke against R. E. Whidden. Supervisors, Inc. brought a re…
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 Appellate Review Of New Trial Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
This is the second appearance of this suit in this Court. See Supervisors, Inc. et al., vs. Arcadia Citrus Growers Association, 101 Fla. 804, 135 Sou. 296. The Record is somewhat confusing. The suit was brought by the plaintiff against Arcadia Citrus Growers Association, the defendant, which defendant was at the time in possession of the property involved by reason of having been appointed Receiver in a suit instituted by one Duke to foreclose a mortgage against one R. E. Whidden.
After the replevin suit was instituted the Court made an-order in the foreclosure ease requiring the Receiver to deliver the fruit to Whidden, the defendant in the foreclosure.
Regardless of this order, the litigation of the replevin suit continued. There was a trial of the replevin suit resulting in favor of the defendant. Writ of error was taken to that judgment and the same was reversed in the opinion and judgment above referred to.
After the mandate went down another trial was had which resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant. The court set aside the verdict and granted a new trial. The *519writ of error which brings the canse before us now is to review the order granting a new trial.
The evidence disclosed by the record is conflicting and the charges of the court as given to the jury were, to say the least, confusing. The language used in the charges shows that the trial court was somewhat confused and did not state the proposition of law attempted to be stated so clearly that he, in considering the same later, could not say that a jury might not have been confused and mislead thereby.
In Miami Transit Co. vs. Mowrey, 138 Sou. 481, this Court said:
“An appellate court will not reverse an order of the court below granting a new trial, unless it clearly appears that judicial discretion has been abused, resulting in injustice, or that the law has been violated. ’ ’
Following the rule above stated, we should affirm the ■ order granting a new trial and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miami Transit Co. v. Fidella Mowrey, 103 Fla. 840 (Fla. 1931)
- Supervisors, Inc. v. Russell, 101 Fla. 804 (Fla. 1931)