C. C. MORGAN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
RUSSELL CARLTON BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, S. J. CARLTON, 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 judgment for the plaintiff in a personal injury case, finding that while technical errors may have occurred, they did not prejudice the defendant, and there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.
The court held that even if technical errors occurred, they did not cause prejudice to the defendant. The court also found ample evidence to support the verdict.
“in view of all the evidence it appears that if technical errors were committed the defendant could not reasonably have been injured thereby.”
Establishes the court's reasoning regarding the lack of prejudice from potential technical errors.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter a previous directed verdict for the defendant was reversed, the case was remanded. S. J. Carlton was substituted as the next friend for the mino…
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 Writ Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
On a former writ of error herein a judgment fpr the defendant on a directed verdict was reversed. Carlton v. Morgan, 68 Fla. 535, 67 South. Rep. 79.
After the cause was remanded S. J. Carlton was made a party plaintiff as the next friend of the minor plaintiff Russell Carlton in the place of W. H. Simmons who had died. There was judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant took this writ of error. Considerable latitude was allowed in the presentation of evidence at the trial and the charges given were comprehensive in their general scope, but in view of all the evidence it appears that if technical errors were committed the defendant could not reasonably have been injured thereby. There is ample evidence to sustain the verdict found and no material errors of law or procedure being shown, the judgment is affirmed.
^Browne, C. J., and Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stringfellow v. Adams, 99 Fla. 623 (Fla. 1930)…Kirkland, 53 Fla. 768, 43 So. R. 969; Holmberg v. Hardee, 90 Fla. 787, 108 So. R. 211; Fielding v. First National Bank, 76 Fla. 545, 80 So. R. 308. It may be generally stated that error without injury is not ground for reversal. Morgan v. Carlton, 73 Fla. 895, 75 So. R. 953. It is also well settled that on questions of fact the finding of the chancellor will not be reversed, unless it clearly appears that he has erred in his conclusions. Waterman v. Higgins, 39 Fla. 8, 21 So. R. 774; Johns v. Bowdoin, 7…
Authorities Cited
- Carlton v. Morgan, 68 Fla. 535 (Fla. 1914)