ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO.
v.
A. G. GATES

Fla. | 1933-10-31
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
112 Fla. 542 Florida Supreme Court (1933)
Also reported at: 150 So. 792

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment on the condition that the appellee remit $800 from the award, otherwise the judgment would be reversed. The court was equally divided on the merits of the appeal.


Holding

The court affirmed the judgment on the condition that the appellee remit $800 from the award within thirty days of the mandate's issuance. If the remittitur is not made, the judgment will be reversed.


Key Quotes

“the judgment should be affirmed, but only on condition of a remittitur of $800.00 as of the date of the judgment in the court below, same to be done within thirty days of the going down of the mandate, otherwise the judgment to stand reversed.”

This quote establishes the conditional affirmance and the specific terms of the remittitur.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The case involved a judgment awarded to the appellee. The appellant, Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., appealed this judgment. The core issue revolved…

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.

Topics

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Remittitur cases and more on FLexlaw


Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The same situation exists in this case as in the companion case of Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Annie E. Clemmons, this day decided. Mr. Chief Justice Davis, Mr. Justice Whitfield and Mr. Justice Brown are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, but only on condition of a remittitur of $800.00’ as of the date of the judgment in the court below, same to be done within thirty days of the going down of the mandate, otherwise the judgment to stand reversed.

Mr. Justice Ellis, Mr. Justice Terrell and Mr. Justice Buford are of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed.

All of the Justices agree that since the judgment must be affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 Sou. Rep. 51, that the affirmance should be on condition of a remittitur in the sum of $800.00 *543as of the date of the judgment, the Justices who favor reversal voting therefor in order to avoid unduly prolonging the litigation in this Court, it appearing that the Court after repeated conferences, is permanently and equally divided on the reversal of the judgment.

Affirmed on condition of remittitur in the sum of $800.00 within thirty days after the going down of the mandate, otherwise reversed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw