J. T. HENRY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
M. A. COCKCROFT, 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 based on a jury verdict, finding that the verdict was not supported by the evidence presented at trial. The court emphasized that a verdict must be responsive to the issues and supported by the evidence to be valid.
No, the jury's verdict was not supported by the evidence as presented. The verdict was limited to damages for wood, and the evidence did not sustain this limited finding.
“If the verdict be regarded as responsive to the issues, it is limited to “damages for wood;” and the quoted limitation in the verdict cannot in view of the declaration be regarded as surplusage.”
This quote explains the court's interpretation of the jury's limited 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, Cockcroft, filed a declaration alleging the defendant, Henry, wrongfully converted wood and fertilizer and tore down houses on the plai…
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 To Land cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
Plaintiff Cockcroft’s declaration in effect alleged in one count that defendant, Henry, wrongfully converted four hundred cords of plaintiff’s wood of the value of one dollar per cord, and “one hundred loads of stable fertilizer of the value of one dollar per load;” and in another count that defendant wrongfully broke and entered plaintiff’s land “and tore down and carried away * * fifteen houses of the value of fifty dollars each.” At the trial the verdict was: “We, the jury, find for the plaintiff the sum of One Hundred and Twenty-five and 40/100 Dollars for damages for wood. So say we all. “J. O. AGUES,
Foreman.”
Judgment was entered on the verdict and the defendant took writ of error. If the verdict be regarded as responsive to the issues, it is limited to “damages for wood;” and the quoted limitation in the verdict cannot in view of the declaration be regarded as surplusage.
As the evidence does not sustain the verdict as found, the judgment is reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.