RUBY HOLMES CARTER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
PETER B. BRADLEY, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF FREDERICK G. BRADLEY, DECEASED, 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.
This case involves a claim for conversion of diamond rings. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of conversion.
No, the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that Bradley converted the rings. The burden was on the plaintiff to prove the conversion.
“The burden was upon the plaintiff to show the conversion of the rings by Bradley.”
Establishes the plaintiff's burden of proof.
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 deposited two diamond rings with Frederick G. Bradley as security for a $6,000 note. The note was paid in 1919. Bradley died in July 192…
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 Instructed Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
Ellis, J.
TJiis is an ..action by the plaintiff in error against jthc administrator of the estate of Frederick G. Bradley for damages for. the conyersion by Bradley in his lifetime of two diamond rings belonging to the plaintiff.
The rings were deposited by the plaintiff with Bradley as security for th.e payment of a note for six thousand dollars made by the plaintiff in favor of Bradley, dated April 27, 1917, and payable twelve months after date. During the first half of the year 1919 the note was paid. Bradley died in July, 1920, and had the rings in his possession several months before he died.
There is no evidence to show that Bradley never restored the. rings to the plaintiff, or that he .otherwise converted, them.
The plea of not guilty, which was interposed by the defendant, operated as a denial of . the commission of the wrong-alleged by taking, damaging or converting the property mentioned in the declaration. See Rule 75 Circuit Courts, Law Actions. The burden was upon the plaintiff to show the conversion of the rings by Bradley.
The defendant moved for an instructed verdict in his behalf. The motion was granted and the plaintiff took a nonsuit and writ of error. Affirmed.
West, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W. B. Harbeson Lumber Co. v. Duncan L. Anderson and Anna Anderson, 102 Fla. 731 (Fla. 1931)…laintiffs relied for a verdict in their behalf was that they were dependents. With no plea denying the dependency, such dependency is admitted by the plea of not guilty. Jacksonville Electric Co. v. Sloan, 52 Fla. 257, 42 So. 516; Carter v. Bradley, 90 Fla. 524, 106 So. 350; Florida Motor Transp. Co. v. Hillman, 87 Fla. 512, 101 So. 31; Crandall’s Florida Common Law Pract. 179. The evidence shows that the deceased lived with his father and sister, and that he contributed in the neighborhood of $250.00 or…
-
Sharps v. Sharps, 214 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…en of proof to show the conversion, which they could sustain only by establishing by a preponderance of the evidence their allegation that the defendant was instructed by her husband to deposit the checks in his custodial account. Carter v. Bradley, 90 Fla. 524, 106 So. 350. The defendant’s evidence was to the effect that such instruction was not given. The fact that the evidence presented on behalf of the wife, in showing that the alleged instruction was not given included evidence of statements by the hu…