JACKSON BROTHERS LUMBER COMPANY, ET AL, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
YAEGER & MCCASKILL, 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.
Jackson Brothers Lumber Company challenged a trial court's grant of a new trial in a breach of contract action, arguing the $196 damage award was inadequate. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the damage award could have been fairly reached from the evidence and the new trial motion should have been denied.
The court held that the damage award could have been fairly arrived at by the jury's consideration of all evidence under the issues presented, and therefore the new trial motion should have been denied. The trial court abused its discretion in granting the new trial.
“as it cannot be said that the amount awarded as damages could not have been arrived at by a fair consideration of all the evidence under the issues, the motion for new trial should have been denied”
Establishes the standard for appellate review of new trial motions based on inadequacy of damages—the award must be clearly unreasonable to warrant reversal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson Brothers contracted with Yaeger & McCaskill to extend a tram road into Jackson's 1360-acre tract of pine timber to haul lumber produced from t…
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 Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This writ of error was taken by the plaintiff below t'o a motion granting a new trial in an action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract, the contention being that the award of $196.00 as damages is inadequate. The contract provided for extending a tram road of the defendants in error into a tract of 1360 acres of pine timber of the plaintiffs in error for the purpose of hauling all the Umber to be made from the trees on the land. The defendants in error agreed to build and operate the tram road, etc., provided the plaintiffs in error “shall offer for shipment over said tram road an average of two hundred thousand feet of lumber per month for twelve months * * * and thereafter an average tonnage of two hundred thous-and feet per month, until all of said timber shall be cut.” It appears that the tram road was not built within the specified time and that before the expiration of twelve months from the agreed date all the timber on the land suitable for bomber had been cut and the lumber made therefrom shipped under the contract.
Giving to the contract the force of a covenant in the particular here involved, the timbered lands with reference to which the contract was made, did not yield the expected Umber production (as to which there was no covenant), and there were items claimed by the plaintiffs in error to offset the demands of the defendants in error under the contract, and as it cannot be said that the amount awarded as damages could not have been arrived at by a fair consideration of all the evidence under the issues, the motion for new trial should have been denied. The order granting a new trial is reversed and the canse is remanded with directions to enter final judgment for the plaintiffs below on the verdict, unless a motion in arrest of judgment, or for judgment non obstante veredicto shall be made and prevail. Sec. 1695 Gen. Stats. 1906, Compiled Laws, 1914; Bishop v. Taylor, 41 Fla. 77, 25 South. Rep. 287; Philadelphia Underwriters’ Ins. Co. of North America v. Bigelow, 48 Fla. 105, 37 South. Rep. 210; Winn v. Coggins, 53 Fla. 327, 42 South. Rep. 897; Feinberg v. Stearns, 56 Fla. 279, 47 South. Rep. 797; Georgia Southern & F. R. Co. v. Hamilton Lumber Co., 63 Fla. 150, 58 South. Rep. 838; Nathan v. Thomas, 63 Fla. 235, 58 South. Rep. 247.
It is so ordered.
Browne, C. J., and Taxlor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Phillips v. Lowenstein, 91 Fla. 89 (Fla. 1926)…Lumber Co., 63 Fla. 150, 58 South. Rep. 838; Lathan v. Thomas, 63 Fla. 235, 58 South. Rep. 247, Ann. Cas. 1914A 987; Cotton State Belting & Supply Co. v. Florida R. Co., 69 Fla. 52, 67 South. Rep. 568; Jackson Bros. Lumber Co. v. Yaeger & McCaskill, 80 Fla. 611, 86 South. Rep. 500. In an action of ejectment the plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the title of the defendant. The plaintiff cannot recover even as against one without title unless he shows title o…
-
Hart v. Held, 149 Fla. 33 (Fla. 1941)…h directions to enter final judgment for the plaintiff below on the verdict, unless a motion in arrest of judgment or for judgment non obstante veredicto shall be made and prevail. See Secs. 4615 C.G.L.; Jackson Bros. Lbr. Co. v. Yaeger & McCaskill, 80 Fla. 611, 86 So. 500; Florida East Coast R. Co. v Davis, 96 Fla. 171, 117 So. 842. It is so ordered. WHITFIELD, BUFORD, TERRELL, CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur. BROWN, C. J., concurs in opinion. Thomas, J., dissents.…
-
Wilhelm v. S. Indian River Co., 98 Fla. 970 (Fla. 1929)…sonably have resulted from such errors to the party complaining of them. Witherspoon v. State, 76 Fla. 445, 80 So. R. 61; Chancey v. State, 68 Fla. 93, 66 So. R. 430; City of Jacksonville v. Glover, 69 Fla. 701, 69 So. R. 20; Jackson Bros v. Yaeger, 80 Fla. 611, 86 So. R. 500. [*977] The Supreme Court is invested with, and the inferior courts are divested of- the power to adopt rules of practice of a permanent and general nature and convenient simply, not necessary, to the administration of law by such inf…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bishop v. Taylor, 41 Fla. 77 (Fla. 1899)
- Feinberg v. Stearns, 56 Fla. 279 (Fla. 1908)
- Ga. S. & Fla. Ry. Co. v. Hamilton Lumber Co., 63 Fla. 150 (Fla. 1912)
- Philadelphia Underwriters v. Bigelow, 48 Fla. 105 (Fla. 1904)
- Winn v. Coggins, 53 Fla. 327 (Fla. 1907)
- Nathan v. Thomas, 63 Fla. 235 (Fla. 1912)