NORMAN D. SUTTLES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
PHOEBE N. BURBRIDGE, 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 writ of error from a Circuit Court order granting a new trial, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no error in the grant of a new trial to the plaintiff Suttles.
The Circuit Court did not err in granting the new trial. The order granting the new trial is affirmed.
“This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record upon writ of error taken under the statute to the order of the Circuit Court granting a new trial herein”
Establishes the procedural posture—review of a new trial order via writ of error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe opinion does not detail the underlying facts of the case, as it is a brief per curiam affirmance focused on the propriety of granting a new trial …
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 Order Granting New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
— This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record upon writ of error taken under the statute to the order of the Circuit Court granting a new trial herein, and the briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said order. It is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the said order be, and is hereby affirmed. The decision is controlled by Owens v. Wilson, 58 Fla. 335, 50 South. Rep. 674; Clary v. Isom, 55 Fla. 384, 45 South. Rep. 994; McLendon v. Lurton-Hardaker Co., 83 Fla. 263, 91 South. Rep. 113; Ruff v. Georgia, S. & F.
R. Co., 67 Fla. 224, 64 South. Rep. 782; Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700, 74 South. Rep. 866; Farrell v. Salary, 43 Fla. 124, 31 So. 283; Herrin v. Avon, 87 Fla. 385, 100 So. Rep. 174; Gulf Refining Co. v. Howard, 82 Fla. 27, 89 South. Rep. 349; Cheyney v. Roberts, 77 Fla. 324, 81 South. Rep. 475; Beverly v. Hardaway, 66 Fla. 177, 63 South. Rep: 702; and notby 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; Cotton States Belting & Supply Company 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; and Philips v. Lowenstein, filed January 23, 1926.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Davis, 96 Fla. 171 (Fla. 1928)…ld have been [*177] properly rendered under the pleadings and the facts as disclosed by the evidence. Seaboard Air Line Ry Co. v. Wester, 94 Fla. 259 114 So. R. 242. See also Phillips v. Lowenstein, 91, Fla. 89, 107 So. R. 350; Snttles v. Burbridge, 91 Fla. 273, 107 So. R. 646; Jackson Bros. Lumber Co. v. Yaeger & McCaskill, 80 Fla. 11, 86 So. R. 500; Georgia Southern & F. R. Co. v. Hamilton Lumber Co., 63 Fla. 150, 58 So. R. 838; Winn v. Coggins, 53 Fla. 327, 42 So. R. 897; Philadelphia Underwriters’ Ins.…
-
Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Wester, 94 Fla. 259 (Fla. 1927)…f judgment or for judgment non obstante vere dicto shall be made to prevail. See Sec. 2905, Revised General Statutes 1920; Winn v. Coggins, 42 Sou. 897, 53 Fla. 327, text 328; Phillips v. Lowenstein, 107 Sou. 350. See also Suttles v. Burbridge, 91 Fla. 273, 107 Sou. 646. It is so ordered. Reversed. Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.…
-
Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Mrs. Hugh Turner, 103 Fla. 300 (Fla. 1931)…lated. Russ vs. Ga. Sou. & Fla. Ry. Co., 67 Fla. 224, 64 Sou. 782; Chaney vs. Roberts, 77 Fla. 324, 81 Sou. 475; Carney vs. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700, 74 Sou. 866; Lockhart vs. Butt-Landstreet, Inc., 91 Fla. 497, 107 Sou. 641; Suttles vs. Burbridge, 91 Fla. 273, 107 Sou. 646; Huston vs. Green, 91 Fla. 434, 108 Sou. 846. The order appealed from should be affirmed and it is so ordered. Affirmed. Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur. Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the o…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (18 total)
- Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700 (Fla. 1917)
- Theola Ruff v. Georgia, 67 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1914)
- Bishop v. Taylor, 41 Fla. 77 (Fla. 1899)
- Feinberg v. Stearns, 56 Fla. 279 (Fla. 1908)
- Cheney v. Roberts, 77 Fla. 324 (Fla. 1919)
- Ga. S. & Fla. Ry. Co. v. Hamilton Lumber Co., 63 Fla. 150 (Fla. 1912)
- Farrell v. Solary, 43 Fla. 124 (Fla. 1901)
- Cotton States Belting & Supply Co. v. Fla. Ry. Co., 69 Fla. 52 (Fla. 1915)
- Gulf Ref. Co. v. Lizzie Howard, 82 Fla. 27 (Fla. 1921)
- Philadelphia Underwriters v. Bigelow, 48 Fla. 105 (Fla. 1904)