E. GREENBLATT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. R. BISSELL DRY GOODS COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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.
In this assumpsit action for goods sold and delivered, the trial court directed a verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of when goods were purchased. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the directed verdict, holding that where the manifest weight and probative force of the evidence clearly supports one party, a directed verdict is proper and does not constitute reversible error.
The trial court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. Where the manifest weight and probative force of the evidence clearly requires a verdict for one party, the evidence is legally insufficient to support a verdict for the opposite party, and the court will not be held in error for directing an appropriate verdict.
“Where the manifest weight and probative force of the evidence clearly requires a verdict for one party, then the evidence is legally insufficient to support a verdict for the opposite party on the particular issue, within the meaning of the statute”
This statement establishes the legal standard for when a directed verdict is proper—when the evidence so clearly favors one party that a verdict for the other would be unsupported.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGreenblatt sued J. R. Bissell Dry Goods Company in assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The critical factual dispute was whether the goods were pur…
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 Conflicting Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
In an action of assumpsit for goods sold and delivered there was judgment for the plaintiff on a directed verdict.
On writ of error it is contended that as the evidence was conflicting oh a material issue as to ’whether' thé' goods were purchaséd in March, 1920, when the defendant was a member of a certain partnership, or in July, 1920, after the defendant had retired from the partnership, the matter should have been submitted to the jury and that it was error to. direct a.verdict for the.plaintiff.. ... .
A motion for new trial ¿nd á ruling thereon with ,an exception duly taken are necessary..to question the sufficiency of the evidence ,to. sustain a verdict that has been found, but such a motion is not essential in presenting to-the appellate court an assignment of error on a charge directing a verdict, where the charge directing the verdiet is duly excepted to when given, and such charge and the exception thereto are properly authenticated to the appellate court. See Section 2811, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920; Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Peters, 77 Fla. 411, text 421, 83 South. Rep. 559.
While there is testimony that the goods were bought in July, which if not controverted, might sustain a-verdict for the defendant, yet there'is testimony accompanied by a written sales order admitted in evidence without 'objection, which tend to establish tlie'fact of an order given for the goods in March. Such evidence considered in the light of the entire evidence 'in tlie casé is of such probative force that the trial court, to give effect to the'manifest weight oE the evidence and the justice of the case, may properly have granted a new trial if a verdict'had been' rendered for the defendant. This being so, the trial court will not be held in error for directing a verdict for the plaintiff; no error of law or matter prejudicing the defendant appearing.
"Where the-manifest weight and probative .force of. the evidence clearly requires a verdict for one party, then the evidence is legally, insufficient tp .support a verdict for the opposite party on the. particular issue, within the meaning of the statute, (Sec. 2696, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920) and the court will not be.held in .err.or..for directing, an appropriate verdict, no error in the case intervening to make the directed verdict erroneous or improper. See Stevens v. Tampa Electric Co., 81 Fla. 512, 88 South. Rep. 303: Berryhill-Cromartie Co. v. Manitowoc Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 66 Fla. 170, 63 South. Rep. 720; Bland v. Fidelity Trust Co., 71 Fla. 499, 71 South. Rep. 630; Campbell v. McLaurin Inv. Co., 74 Fla. 501, 77 South. Rep. 277.
Affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Ellis, Browne and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Davis, 96 Fla. 171 (Fla. 1928)….” Sec. 2696, Rev. Gen. Stats., 1920, Sec. 4363, Comp. General Laws 1927, Stevens v. Tampa Electric Co. 81 Fla. 512, 88 So. R. 303; Smith, Richardson & Conroy v. Tampa Electric Co. 82 Fla. 79, 89 So. R. 352; Greenblatt v. J. R. Bissell Dry Goods Co. 85 Fla. 83, 95 So. R. 302; Rogers v. Martin 87 Fla. 204, 99 So. R. 551. See also A. B. Small Co. v. Lamborn & Co. 267 U. S. 248, 45 Sup. Ct. R. 300. ' It is the duty of this Court to reverse an order granting a new trial when it appears from the record that n…
-
Holstun & Son v. Embry, 124 Fla. 554 (Fla. 1936)…and a ruling thereon with exception duly taken are necessary to question the sufficiency of all the evidence to sustain the verdict.” Osceola Fertilizer Co. v. Beville, 86 Fla. 479, text 483, 98 South. Rep. 354; Greenblatt v. Bissell Dry Goods Co., 85 Fla. 83, 95 South. Rep. 302; Thomas Bros. Co. v. Price & Watson, 56 Fla. 854, 48 South. Rep. 262. AVhen exceptions to rulings made by the court are duly taken when they occur, a motion for a new trial is not essential to review those rulings. Parrish v. Pe…
-
New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Alden Huckins, 127 Fla. 540 (Fla. 1937)…la. 504, 512, 74 So. 509; Berryhill-Cromartie Co. v. Manitowoc Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 66 Fla. 170, 63 So. 720; Gordon v. Lowe, 64 Fla. 81, 59 So. 861; McGill v. Dartist, 69 Fla. 587, 68 So. 755; Greenblatt v. Bissell Dry Goods Co., 85 Fla. 83, 95 So. 302; Ocala Iron Works v. Crosby, 61 Fla. 369, 54 So. 815; Am. Mercantile Co. v. Circular Advertising Co., 71 Fla. 522, 71 So. 607. See also Hendrick v. Lindsay, 93 U. S. 143, 23 L. Ed. 855; Small Co. v. Lamborn & Co., 267 U. S. 248, 45 Sup. Ct. 300, 69…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Persis Stevens v. Tampa Elec. Co., 81 Fla. 512 (Fla. 1921)
- Campbell v. McLaurin Inv. Co., 74 Fla. 501 (Fla. 1917)
- Bland v. Fid. Tr. Co., 71 Fla. 499 (Fla. 1916)
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Peters, 77 Fla. 411 (Fla. 1919)
- Berryhill-Cromartie Co. v. Manitowoc Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 66 Fla. 170 (Fla. 1913)