DANIEL T. BIBB, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
UNITED GROCERY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS 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 directed verdict for the defendants, holding that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to support his claim of malicious abuse of process and conspiracy.
No, the trial court did not err. The plaintiff failed to prove his case, making the directed verdict proper.
“An examination of all the plaintiff’s evidence convinces us that the plaintiff had signally failed to prove his case, therefore no verdict could have been lawfully returned in his favor.”
Establishes the court's finding that the plaintiff's evidence was insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaniel T. Bibb sued United Grocery Company and B. G. Lasseter for malicious abuse of process, alleging a conspiracy to destroy his business. The case …
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 Malicious Abuse Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Daniel T. Bibb brought an action at law against the United Grocery Company, .a corporation, and B. G. Lasseter, which both the plaintiff and the defendants concur in their briefs in stating “is an action on the case for a malicious abuse of process in the nature of a conspiracy to break up and destroy the plaintiff’s business.” No point is made on the pleadings and we see no occasion to set them out. The case was tried) before a jury and at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence each of the defendants filed a motion upon several grounds for a directed verdict, which motions were granted and the jury instructed to find a verdict in favor of the defendants, which the jury did and judgment was entered accordingly.
The two errors assigned are based upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial, the grounds of which are that the court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant, and in the exclusion of a certain designated paper proffered by the plaintiff in evidence. An examination of all the plaintiff’s evidence convinces us that the plaintiff had signally failed to prove his case, therefore no verdict could have been lawfully returned in his favor. This would have been true, even if the excluded paper 'had been admitted in evidence. Under the provisions of Section 1496 of the General Statutes of 1906, as amended by Chapter 6220 of the Laws of Florida, (Acts of 1911, p. 191), the direction of the verdict by the trial judge was proper. / The judgment will be affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford, Whit-, field and Ellis, JJ., concur.