ANNIE BALL, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
PETERSON-MCNEILL COMPANY, A 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a directed verdict for the defendant in a trespass action, holding that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to warrant jury consideration.
Yes, the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff presented evidence that tended to prove the trespass as alleged, and the case should have been submitted to the jury.
“The court directed a verdict for the defendant on which judgment was rendered for the defendant, and plaintiff took writ of error.”
Describes the procedural posture of the case at the trial court level.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnnie Ball sued Peterson-McNeill Company for trespass, alleging the company entered her land and cut timber between July 1, 1910, and June 3, 1912. Th…
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 Trespass cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Annie Ball brought an action against the Peterson-McNeill Company, a corporation, for trespass upon lands. The defendant pleaded not guilty, thereby putting in issue “the trespass alleged,” which is, that the defendant on July ist, 1910, and divers other days and times between said. date" and the commencement of the suit, June 3rd, 1912, broke and entered certain described lands of the plaintiff and cut therefrom larg'e quantities of pine timber. The court directed a verdict for the defendant on which judgment was rendered for the defendant, and plaintiff took writ of error. A discussion of the technical differences, if any in law really exist as to the materiality of allegations and proofs of time in actions for a single trespass and for a continuing trespass, is not necessary in the disposition of this writ of error. It cannot be said there is no evidence tending to prove the issue as to the commission of a trespass substantially as alleged, and the cause should have been submitted to the jury.
Judgment reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJi, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Century Tr. Co. of Baltimore v. The Allison Realty Co., 105 Fla. 456 (Fla. 1932)…ltifariousness the matter particularly involved is convenience in the administration of justice, and if this can be accomplished by the mode of procedure adopted, an objection for multifariousness should not be allowed.’ Farrell vs. Forest Inv. Co., 73 Fla. 239, 74 So. 216.” "We appreciate the full significance of this language when we consider that “multifariousness goes to convenience more than to merit.” Johnson vs. Benbow, supra; Prince vs. Mahin, supra; Carlton vs. Hilliard, supra. Indeed, in the Mou…
-
Louella P. Hill v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 193 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…& P. R. Co. v. Williams, 1896, 37 Fla. 406, 20 So. 558. It is reversible error to direct a verdict for the defendant in a case where there is some substantial evidence tending to prove the issue for the plaintiff. Ball v. Peterson-McNeill Co., 1917, 73 Fla. 239, 74 So. 216; Cason v. Florida Power Co., 1917, 74 Fla. 1, 76 So. 535, L.R.A.1918A, 1034. Courts should be reluctant to grant a directed verdict where the evidence adduced is reasonably susceptible of supporting the issue or issues presented. Alessi…