MARIANNA & BLOUNTSTOWN RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
W. H. MAY, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATE OF CHARLEY MAY, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff if the plaintiff agreed to a reduction in damages, otherwise, the judgment would be reversed for a new trial due to excessive damages.
The court found the damages awarded to be excessive. The judgment would stand affirmed if the plaintiff remitted $1,000.00 from the verdict; otherwise, the judgment would be reversed for a new trial.
“it seems to the court that the damages awarded to the defendant’s estate are excessive”
The court's finding regarding the amount of damages awarded.
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, W. H. May as administrator of the estate of Charley May, deceased, was awarded damages in a lower court against the Marianna & Blountst…
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 Excessive Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
— This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that the damages awarded to the defendant’s estate are excessive ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Jones, 45 Fla. 407, 34 South. Rep. 246; Jacksonville Electric Co. v. Bowden, 54 Fla. 461, 45 South. Rep. 755; Secs. 4960, 4961, 4964, 4965, Rev. Gen Stats. 1920; it is, therefore, considered ordered and adjudged that if the plaintiff below shall remit $1,000.00 as of the date of the verdict, the judgment shall stand affirmed for the remainder, otherwise, the judgment will stand reversed for a new trial. Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Hayes, 67 Fla. 101, 64 South. Rep. 504; 84 Fla. 235, 93 So. 247; 20 Fla. 515.
It is so ordered.
Brown, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Strum, J. J., concur. Buford, J., of counsel for Defendant in Error, disqualified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Hayes, 67 Fla. 101 (Fla. 1914)
- Jacksonville Elec. Co. v. Bowden, 54 Fla. 461 (Fla. 1907)
- Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Jones, 45 Fla. 407 (Fla. 1903)
- S. Fla. Farms Co. v. Stevenson, 84 Fla. 235 (Fla. 1922)
- McLean v. Spratt, 20 Fla. 515 (Fla. 1884)