J. K. WILLIAMS AND DUNHAM-WILLIAMS, A CORPORATION, AND J. K. WILLIAMS COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
C. W. SHERRY, 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 in favor of the plaintiff against two defendants where one defendant was dismissed by non-suit. The court rejected all seven assignments of error, holding that the trial court properly dismissed one defendant for misjoinder when evidence failed to establish liability against that defendant.
The court affirmed the judgment without reversible error. The trial court properly dismissed J. K. Williams Company through non-suit based on misjoinder when evidence failed to establish liability. Directed verdicts should only be granted when there is no evidence whatever that could support a verdict for the plaintiff.
“Where an action at law has been brought against several defendants and the evidence adduced at the trial fails to establish the liability of one of the defendants, the trial court may dismiss the action as to such defendant for the reason that there has been a misjoinder of such defendant”
Establishes the rule allowing dismissal by non-suit when liability is not proven against one of multiple defendants
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSuit was brought by defendant in error against three defendants: Dunham-Williams Company, J. K. Williams, and J. K. Williams Company. At trial, eviden…
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 Misjoinder Of Defendants cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In this case suit was brought by defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error. On the trial it develops that no liability is proven against one of the defendants in the court below, J. K. Williams Company, a corporation. Thereupon non-suit was entered as to that defendant. The result of the trial was a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the court below, defendant in error here, against Dunham-Williams Company, a corporation, and J. K. Williams.
There were seven (7) assignments of error, as follows:
‘ ‘ 1. The denial of a motion for a directed verdict made by the defendants at the close of the testimony by the plaintiff.
2. The denial of the motion for a directed verdict made by the plaintiff at the close of the testimony for the defendants.
3. The denial of the motion for a new trial.
4. The granting of a motion for a non-suit by the plaintiff as to the defendant, the J.-K. Williams Company.
5. The denial of a motion in arrest of judgment.
6. The denial of a motion for a judgment non obstante veredicto.
7. The entry of judgment for the plaintiff. ’ ’
We find no reversible error disclosed by the record. The judgment should be affirmed on authority of Paul v. Commerce Bank, 69 Fla. 62, 68 Sou. 68, in which the court construed Section 1372 of the General Statutes of Florida, now Section 2568 of the Revised General Statutes of Florida, using the following language:
“Where an action at law has been brought against several defendants and the evidence adduced at the trial fails to establish the liability of one of the defendants, the trial court may dismiss the action as to such defendant for the reason that there has been a misjoinder of such defendant, in accordance with the provisions of Section 1372 of the General Statutes of Florida.”
In that case the Court also held that,
“A verdict for the defendant should never be directed by the court, unless it is clear that there is no evidence whatever adduced that could in law support a verdict for the plaintiff. If the evidence is conflicting or will admit of different reasonable inferences, or if there is evidence tending to prove the issue, it should be submitted to the jury as a question of fact to be determined by them, and not taken from the jury and passed upon by the court as a question of law. ’ ’
See also the Mechanics & Metals National Bank of the City of New York, a corporation, v. Angel et al., 79 Fla. 761, 85 Sou. 675; also Jonas et al. v. Burkes, 87 Fla. 68, 99 Sou. 252.
Judgment affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Cameron & Barkley Co. v. Law-Engle Co., 98 Fla. 920 (Fla. 1929)…le inference, or if there is- evidence tending to prove the issue, it should be submitted to the jury as a question of fact to be determined by them, and not taken from the jury and passed upon by the court as a question of law.” Williams v. Sherry, 94 Fla. 998, 114 So. R. 849. See also Davis v. Ivy, 93 Fla. 387, 112 So. R. 264. In the case of Branford State Bank v. Howell Co., 88 Fla. 493, 102 So. R. 649, this Court said: “The judge should never direct a verdict for one party unless the evidence is such…
-
Tampa Shipbuilding & Eng'g Corp. v. Adams, 132 Fla. 419 (Fla. 1938)…Bass v. Ramos, 58 Fla. 161, [*430] 50 So. 945, 138 Am. St. Rep. 105; Wood Lbr. Co. v. Gipson, 63 Fla. 316, 58 So. 364; Paul v. Commercial Bank, 69 Fla. 62, 68 So. 68; Johnson v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 59 Fla. 305, 52 So. 195; Williams v. Sherry, 94 Fla. 998, 114 So. 849; German-American Lbr. Co. v. Brock, 55 Fla. 577, 46 So. 740; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Pelot, 62 Fla. 121, 56 So. 496. See King v. Cooney-Eckstein Co., 66 Fla. 246, 63 So. 659, Ann. Cas. 1916C 163; Gunn v. Jacksonville, 67 Fla. 40,…
-
Sharp v. Williams, 141 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1939)…v. Ramos, 58 Fla. 161, 50 So. 945, 138 Am. St. Rep. 105; Wood Lbr. Co. v. Gipson, 63 Fla. 316, 58 So. 364; Paul v. Commercial Bank, 69 Fla. 62, 68 So. 68; Johnson v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 59 Fla. 305, 52 So. 195; Williams v. Sherry, 94 Fla. 998, 114 So. 849; German-American Lbr. Co. v. Brock, 55 Fla. 577, 46 So. 740; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Pelot, 62 Fla. 121, 56 So. 496. See also King v. Cooney-Eckstein Co., 66 Fla. 246, 63 So. 659, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 163; Gunn v. Jacksonville, 67 Fla. 40, 64 So.…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Paul v. Commercial Bank of Ocala, 69 Fla. 62 (Fla. 1915)
- The Mechanics & Metals Nat'l Bank of the City of N.Y. v. Angel, 79 Fla. 761 (Fla. 1920)
- Jonas v. Burks, 87 Fla. 68 (Fla. 1924)