V. I. WALKER, BY HER NEXT FRIEND, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
LAVINIA WILLIS, ADMINISTRATRIX, 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 for the defendant, finding that the trial court erred in excluding the plaintiff's evidence and directing a verdict. The case involved a claim for lost furniture stored with a deceased individual.
Yes, the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's evidence and directing a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff should have been allowed to present testimony regarding the deposit, value, and fate of her furniture.
“It was error to reject the evidence of the plaintiff as to the depositing by her of her furniture with the items and value thereof in the decedent’s storage house, and in refusing to permit her to testify what had become of it since that time, and of other witnesses tending to establish the value thereof; and it was error to strike all, or any part of the evidence for the plaintiff, and error to direct a verdict for the defendant.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for reversing the lower court's decision, highlighting the errors in evidentiary rulings and the directed 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 plaintiff, Mrs. V. I. Walker, sued the administratrix of A. Willis's estate, alleging that furniture stored with the decedent for the benefit of t…
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 Motion For New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
—An action was brought by Mrs. V. I. Walker by next friend, against the administratrix of the estate of A. Willis, deceased, the declaration alleging the storage of certain furniture with the decedent and the use thereof for the benefit of the decedent’s estate and destruction and loss thereof for which payment is refused. There was judgment for the defendant on a directed verdict, and the plaintiff took writ of error. The errors assigned are in denying a new trial and in entering judgment for the defendant. Among the grounds of the motion for new trial are the rulings of 'the court in rejecting evidence for the plaintiff, and in striking all the testimony of the plaintiff and directing a verdict for the defendant.
It was error to reject the evidence of the plaintiff as to the depositing by her of her furniture with the items and value thereof in the decedent’s storage house, and in refusing to permit her to testify what had become of it since that time, and of other witnesses tending to establish the value thereof; and it was error to strike all, or any part of the evidence for the plaintiff, and error to direct a verdict for the defendant.
For the errors found, the judgment is reversed, at the cost of the defendant in error. Taylor, C. J., and Cockrell, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur. Shackleford, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Cannon v. State, 107 So. 360 (Fla. 1926)…h innocence. ’ ’ Whetston v. State, 31 Fla. 240, 12 South. Rep. 661; Kennedy v. State, 31 Fla. 428, 12 South. Rep. 858; Gantling v. State, 40 Fla. 237, 23 South. Rep. 857; Jenkins v. State, 35 Fla. 737, 18 South. Rep. 182; Pate v. State, 72 Fla. 97, 72 South. Rep. 517; Hall v. State, decided at June Term, 1925. As this rule as to the measure of proof was not definitely embraced in the court’s instructions to the jury, we cannot say, in the light of the evidence in the case, and a careful study of the entire recor…
-
Doyle Hall v. State, 90 Fla. 719 (Fla. 1925)…innocence. Whetson v. State, 31 Fla. 240, 12 South. Rep. 661; Kennedy v. State, 31 Fla. 428, 12 South. Rep. 858; Gantling v. State, 40 Fla. 237, 23 South. Rep. 857; [*721] Jenkins v. State, 35 Fla. 737, 18 South. Rep. 182; Pate v. State, 72 Fla. 97, 72 South. Rep. 517; 1 Whar. Cr. Ev. (3rd ed.) 22; Underhill's Cr. Ev. (3rd ed.) 16. We have examined the evidence carefully and it is conclusive as to the burning of a building belonging to Sam Williams, but it does not lead to a reasonable or moral certainty or even…
-
Frank v. State, 121 Fla. 53 (Fla. 1935)…246; Cannon v. State, 91 Fla. 214, 107 So. 360; Whetston v. State, 31 Fid. 240, 12 So. 661; Kennedy v. State, 31 Fla. 428, 12 So. 858; Gantling v. State, 40 Fla. 237, 23 So. 857; Jenkins v. State, 35 Fla. 737, 18 So. 182; Pate v. State, 72 Fla. 97, 72 So. 517; 1 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (3rd Ed.) 22; Underhill’s Criminal Evidence (3rd Ed.) 16. The value of circumstantial evidence and its effect as proof depend upon the conclusive nature and tendency of the circumstances relied upon to establish the c…
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