O. G. SHOUP, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
W. H. WAITS AND Y. A. HARRIS, 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.
In this appeal from a lumber sales debt collection case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the jury's verdict of $542.62 but reversed the trial court's judgment because it improperly added $33.65 in interest without jury authorization. The court held that interest, like all damages, must be assessed by the jury in the verdict.
The trial court erred in adding interest to the judgment without jury authorization. Although interest on amounts due may be recoverable as a damage element, it must be ascertained and assessed by the jury in the verdict. The judgment must be limited to the amount the jury found as damages.
“Although interest upon the amount found to be due by the jury, from the due date to the date of the verdict, is allowable as an element of damage, like all other elements of damage it must be ascertained by the jury and assessed in the verdict.”
Establishes the core holding that interest must be jury-determined like other damages
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants in error (Waits and Harris) sued plaintiff in error (Shoup) to recover a balance due on lumber sold on open account. The trial court admitt…
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 Common Counts cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
— Defendants in error, as plaintiffs below, sued the plaintiff in error to recover a balance due upon the value of certain lumber sold by the former to the latter on open account. The declaration was upon the common counts. Plaintiffs below recovered judgment for $576.27. To that judgment writ of error was taken.
Numerous errors are assigned upon the rulings of .the trial court upon the pleadings; the admission of certain evidence and the rejection of other evidence at the trial; the giving of certain charges by the trial court and the refusal to give other charges; and the denial of the motion of the defendant below for a new trial. We have examined these assignments and find that none of them present reversible error. Although the plaintiffs’ proof of delivery of the lumber was meager, as was also their proof of an account stated, it was not so deficient as to authorize a directed verdict for the defendant, and was therefore properly submitted to the jury. See Standard Oil Co. v. Van Etten, 107 U. S. 325; 27 Law. Ed. 319; Glass v. Virginia Carolina Chemical Co., 73 Fla. 873; 74 South. Rep. 981.
Plaintiff in error, however, further assigns as error the action of the trial court “in entering up judgment in excess of verdict.” The verdict is: “We the jury find for the plaintiffs and assess their damages at $542.62.” There is no specific mention of interest. Judgment was entered as follows: “It is thereupon considered, ordered and adjudged that the plaintiffs, W. H. Waits and Y. A. Harris, do have and recover of and from the defendant, O. G. Shoup, the sum of $542.62 as principal and the sum of $33.65 as interest from September 16th, 1922, to date, being a total of $576.27 as their damage, together with their costs in this behalf expended and taxed at $10.54' and for which let execution issue.”
Although interest upon the amount found to be due by the jury, from the due date to the date of the verdict, is allowable as an element of damage, like all other elements of damage it must be ascertained by the jury and assessed in the verdict. In an action of this nature, there being no reference to interest in the verdict, there is no authority, in "entering up the judgment thereon, to add to the sum assessed by the jury as damages an additional sum for interest thereon. The judgment is to that extent erroneous. See Cary & Co. v. Hyer, decided at the January Term, 1926. Also McCreary v. Gano, 41 S.
E. Rep. 480. vThe judgment is reversed at the cost of the defendants in error, and the cause remanded with directions to enter a proper judgment in accordance with the verdict of the jury, so that the judgment, as of the date it was originally entered, to-wit, the 26th day of June, 1923, will be in amount of $542.62, and as so modified and entered, the judgment will stand affirmed. Geiger v. Henry, 44 Fla. 208; 32 South. Rep. 874; Sec. 2918, Rev. Gen. Stat. 1920.
It is so ordered.
Brown, C. J., and Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P.'J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J.,‘concur in the Opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Brite v. Orange Belt Sec. Co., 133 Fla. 266 (Fla. 1938)…ereon from the time when the same becomes legally due and payable; and when no such time is ascertainable, then interest is allowable only 'from the date of an actual demand of payment, or of the commencement of the suit.” See also Shoup v. Waites, 91 Fla. 378, 107 So. 769, and Treadway v. Terrall, 158 S. 512, 117 Fla. 838; and Sullavan v. McMillan, 19 So. 340, 37 Fla. 134, text 145, where this court quoted the Alabama Supreme Court as follows: “In State v. Lott, 69 Fla. 147, it is said: ‘Interest in thi…
-
Vacation Prizes, Inc. v. City Nat'l Bank OF Miami Beach, 227 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…upon the amount found to be due by the jury, from the due date to the date of the verdict, is allowable as an element of damage, like all other elements of damage it must be ascertained by the jury and assessed in the verdict.” Shoup v. Waits, 1926, 91 Fla. 378, 379, 107 So. 769, 770. Justice Buford of the Florida Supreme Court in 1933 found that as the verdict showed that “the jury did not intend to allow interest” and as “interest constituted an element of the damages recoverable” that interest could no…
-
State v. Uly O. Thompson, 113 Fla. 419 (Fla. 1933)…use the suit was based upon promissory notes and that which would be applicable if the suit had been based .on an open account. In either event the interest constituted. an element of the damages recoverable. In Shoup v. Waits, et al., 91 Fla. 378, 107 Sou. 769, we said: “Although interest upon the amount found to be due by the jury, from the due date to the date of the verdict, is allowable as an element of damages, like all other elements of damage it must be ascertained by the jury and assessed in the…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Oil Co. v. Van Etten, 107 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1882)
- Geiger v. Henry, 44 Fla. 208 (Fla. 1902)
- Glass v. Virginia-Carolina Chem. Co., 73 Fla. 873 (Fla. 1917)