F. X. MILLER ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
J. E. PACE, 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 lower court's judgment, holding that a party waived any objection to juror transportation by failing to raise it before the verdict. The court found no reversible error in the proceedings.
The court held that the objection to the jurors' transportation was waived because it was not raised before the verdict. Therefore, it did not constitute reversible error.
“The irregularity complained of, touching the conveying of two jurors from their homes to and from the place of trial by the counsel for defendant in error in an automobile, was not complained of until after verdict, when, to avail the plaintiffs in error, who had full knowledge thereof, it should have been raised and objected to before verdict, so that the trial cpurt could have discharged the jurors and declared a mistrial.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for deeming the juror transportation issue waived.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs in error appealed a judgment, and the defendant in error moved to strike the bill of exceptions. The appellate court reviewed the merit…
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 Waiver Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This cause coming on to be heard upon a motion to strike the bill of exceptions from the transcript of the record on the ground that said bill of exceptions omits and fails to contain all the evidence adduced in the trial of the cause, although the defendant in error demanded that all of said evidence be included in said bill of exceptions, all of which appears from the transcript, and in the consideration of said motion, the court having considered the entire merits of the cause, and coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs in error have failed to make any reversible error to appear. The irregularity complained of, touching the conveying of two jurors from their homes to and from the place of trial by the counsel for defendant in error in an automobile, was not complained of until after verdict, when, to avail the plaintiffs in error, who had full knowledge thereof, it should have been raised and objected to before verdict, so that the trial cpurt could have discharged the jurors and declared a mistrial. The judgment below is hereby affirmed at the costs of plaintiffs in error. All concur, except Whitfield, J., absent on account of sickness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Arlee Jackson and Mugge Rivers, 433 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…v. St. Mary’s Hospital, Inc., 305 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (same). See also Berger v. Nathan, 66 So. 2d 278 (Fla.1953) (no error in denying new trial where objection raised for first time in motion for new trial); Miller v. Pace. 71 Fla, 274, 71 So. 276 (1916) (same); Omer Corporation v. Duke, 211 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (same); Park v. Belford Trucking Co., 165 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), cert. dismissed, 174 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1965) (same). Cf. Murray-Ohio Manufacturing Company v. Patterson…
-
Raines v. State, 65 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1953)…otion for new trial had been filed in the cause and then it was raised by a pleading styled “Supplement to Motion for New Trial and/or Discharge of Defendant Raines,” filed 15 days after the rendition of the verdict. In Miller v. Pace, 71 Fla. 274, 71 So. 276, a crucial point at issue was whether a judgment of the lower court should be reversed on the ground of misconduct affecting the trial jury; the alleged irregularity complained of being .that throughout the trial defense counsel had conveyed two jur…
-
Bishop v. Watson, 367 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ard such remarks were not legal basis to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial in this case. Baggett v. Davis, supra. The order granting new trial is reversed, and the cause is remanded for entry of judgment on the verdict. . Miller v. Pace, 71 Fla. 274, 71 So. 276 (1916); Berger v. Nathan, 66 So. 2d 278, 280 (Fla.1953); Omer Corporation v. Duke, 211 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Rose’s Stores, Inc. v. Mason, 338 So. 2d 1323, 1324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). . See citations in footnote 1. . Baggett v. D…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence