J. C. WALKER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
H. A. HUMPHREY, 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 reversed a lower court's decision, finding that the trial court erred in granting an instructed verdict for the plaintiff in a replevin action. The appellate court held that the defendant should have been allowed to present evidence regarding the allocation of payments made when multiple accounts were outstanding.
Yes, the trial court erred in granting the motion for an instructed verdict. The defendant should have been permitted to submit evidence to prove that he could direct the application of payments made when more than one account was outstanding.
“In the state of the record as here presented we think that error' was committed in granting the motion for an instructed verdict.”
Establishes the court's finding of error in the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceH. A. Humphrey sued J. C. Walker in replevin to recover mules and wagons that Humphrey claimed ownership of, alleging Walker unlawfully detained them.…
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 Application Of Payments cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
IT. A. Humphrey brought an action of replevin against J. C. Walker to recover certain mules and wagons that Humphrey claimed to own and that Walker detained unlawfully. At the conclusion of the testimony motion for an instructed verdict on the part of the plaintiff was granted. A new trial was denied and writ of error was taken to this court.
In the state of the record as here presented we think that error' was committed in granting the motion for an instructed verdict. It was also competent for defendant to submit evidence to prove that at the time payments were made by him where more than one account was outstanding he could direct the account to which said payments were to be credited.
The judgment below is reversed and a new trial awarded. Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Bueord, J. J., eon-cur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Iola v. Brumick, 131 Fla. 46 (Fla. 1938)…hen and there controlling the parties was the deed in question executed and delivered for the purpose of conveying the fee simple title or was it given for the purpose of securing the payment of money? In the case of McKinney v. Gainey, 96 Fla. 547, 118 Sou. Rep. 917, this Court said: “The question of whether a deed is absolute in form is to be taken as a mortgage depends upon the intention of the parties in regard to it at the time of it's execution. This may be ascertained from the paper itself, or the instrum…
-
Markell v. Hilpert, 140 Fla. 842 (Fla. 1939)…is clear that the real purpose of the parties to an absolute conveyance of property was to secure the payment of money, the conveyance will be regarded as a mortgage. See Stovall v. Stokes, 94 Fla. 717, 115 So. 828; McKinney v. Gainey, 96 Fla. 547, 118 So. 917. It has been held by this Court that the relation of the parties at the time of its execution may be considered in determining whether a deed is a mortgage. The conduct of the parties and the circumstances under which the instrument was executed may…1 / 2
-
Freeman F. Gross and Leah L. Gross v. Hammond, 123 Fla. 471 (Fla. 1936)…ge-without reference to-the terms of the instrument.” See also Connor v. Connor, 59 Fla. 467, 52 Sou. 727; Tilman v. Niemira, 99 Fla. 833, 127 Sou. 855; Equitable Bldg., etc., Assn. v. King, 48 Fla. 252, 37 Sou. 181; McKinney v. Gainey, 96 Fla. 547, 118 So. 917; Walls v. Endel, 20 Fla. 86; Brooks v. Federal Land Bank, 106 Fla. 412, 143 Sou. 749, 753; First Nat. Bank v. Ashmead, 23 Fla. 379, 2 So. 657; Vanderpool Properties v. Hells, 100 Fla. 933, 130 So. 457. In Stovall v. Stokes, 94 Fla: 717, 115 Sou. 28…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence