JOHN TOMPKINS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
NEEDHAM W. EASON, 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.
John Tompkins appealed a jury verdict against him in an attachment suit, claiming the Circuit Court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed because the appeal lacked a proper bill of exceptions, preventing appellate review of the evidentiary claims.
The court cannot review the correctness of the trial court's ruling on a motion for a new trial without a proper bill of exceptions incorporating the evidence, and therefore must presume the lower court's ruling was correct.
“to enable the Court to pronounce upon the correctness of that ruling, resort must be had to all the evidence which was before the jury at the trial; but there is a total absence of a bill of exceptions, or of any thing purporting so to be”
Establishes that appellate review of trial court rulings requires a proper bill of exceptions containing the evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTompkins commenced an attachment suit against Eason in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County. At trial in Fall Term 1856, the jury rendered a verdi…
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 Verdict Contrary To Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
DuPONT, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit was commenced by the plaintiff in error against the defendant by process of attachment, and judgment was given therein for the defendant upon a verdict of the jury at the Pall Term 1856, of the Circuit Court of Hillsborough county. Prom that judgment an appeal has been taken to this Court, and the only specific error assigned for a reversal is, that the Circuit Court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.
In looting into the record, we find that the plaintiff’s counsel did mate a motion in the Court below for a new trial, upon the ground that “ the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence,” which motion was overruled by the Court. Now, it is perfectly clear, that to enable the Court to pronounce upon the correctness of that ruling, resort must be had to all the evidence which was before the jury at the trial; but there is a total absence of a bill of exceptions, or of any thing purporting so to be ; and as the evidence can be brought up only by being incorporated in the bill of exceptions, there is consequently nothing upon which .this Court can act, in order to guide them to any conclusion. This being the case, they are constrained to presume that the only ruling of the Court below was correct.
It is true that the record contains a large mass of what purports to be the evidence that was used upon the trial of the canse, consisting of several sets of depositions of divers witnesses, but this Court has repeatedly ruled that evidence brought up in this loose way will not be considered — that to commend it to the consideration of the Appellate Court, it must be incorporated into a “ bill of exceptions,” attested as is provided for by the statute — (Thomps. Dig., p. 357, See. 3, § 1 — Proctor vs. Hart, 5 Fla. r. 465.
Let the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed*
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burroughs v. State, 17 Fla. 643 (Fla. 1880)
-
Livingston v. Cooper, 22 Fla. 292 (Fla. 1886)
-
Myrick v. Merritt, 22 Fla. 335 (Fla. 1886)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence