LILLIAN W. SEIDEL
v.
ANDREW EDMISTON, JR., ET AL., EXECUTORS
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 directed verdict for the plaintiff in an action where the defendant, a grantee in a deed, allegedly failed to pay notes and a mortgage as agreed. The court found the evidence clearly supported the plaintiff's claim.
Yes, the directed verdict for the plaintiff was proper because the evidence clearly showed the plaintiff's right to recover on the assumption agreement as a matter of law.
“The Court is of the opinion that, as a matter of law, there was no really opposing evidence of the issues made by the pleadings, and that the evidence as a matter of law clearly showed the right of the plaintiff below to recover on the assumption agreement sued on.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for upholding the directed verdict.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued the defendant, who had acquired property via a deed. The plaintiff alleged the defendant had assumed and agreed to pay certain note…
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 Directed Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
This was an action at law against the grantee in a deed who, so the plaintiff below alleged, had assumed and agreed to pay certain notes and a mortgage against the property conveyed, but who had not done so. Judgment on a directed verdict was entered for plaintiff. Defendant has taken writ of error.
The Court is of the opinion that, as a matter of law, there was no really opposing evidence of the issues made by the pleadings, and that the evidence as a matter of law clearly showed the right of the plaintiff below to recover on the assumption agreement sued on. So the directed verdict for plaintiff was proper. Bland v. Fidelity Trust Co., 71 Fla. 499, 71 Sou. Rep. 630, L. R. A. 1916F 209; Section 4363 C. G. L., 2696 R. G. S. The case of Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700, 74 Sou. Rep. 866, holding that .the Court should not direct a verdict for one party merely because if the verdict were rendered for the opposite party a new trial would be granted, is recognized as the prevailing *804•rule of law on the subject of directed verdicts in this State, but the Court is of the opinion that the legal effect of the evidence shows the right of plaintiff to a recovery as a matter of law so the cited casé is'.not applicable to the situation presented by this record.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Brown, J., absent and not participating on account of illness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bedell v. Lassiter, 143 Fla. 43 (Fla. 1940)…es Drainage District [*47] reported in 57 Fed. (2d) 1048; Rorick, et al., v. Knott, 69 Fed (2d) 708; State ex rel. Sherrill v. Milam, et al., 113 Fla. 491, 116 Fla. 492, 153 So. 100, 125, 136; State ex rel. Board of Comm’rs. v. Sholtz, 112 Fla. 756, 150 So. 878; Florida Ranch & Dairy Co. v. Everglades Drainage District, 74 Fed. (2d) 914; 293 U. S. 521. The judgment in the sum of $5,769.23 in behalf of Carter & Yonge dated August 23, 1937, was for professional services rendered the board in connection with…
-
State of Fla. Ex rel. Bd. of Supervisors of S. Fla. Conservancy Dist. v. Millard F. Caldwell, 160 Fla. 355 (Fla. 1948)…, 57 Fed. (2nd) 1048. This Court construed the statute not to require the Trustees to pay for tax certificates issued upon privately owned land “bid off” to the Everglades Drainage District until such land had been sold or redeemed. State v. Sholtz, 150 So. 878, 112 Fla. 756, Although no further discussion is required, we cannot refrain from quoting from an annotation styled “Special Assessments” — Public Property” — 90 A.L.R. 1146: “A state clearly has the right, by positive legislative enactment, to de…
-
State v. Everglades Drainage Dist., 155 Fla. 36 (Fla. 1944)…by obligation of the State. The Legislature has repeatedly repudiated the idea that the trust to drain and reclaim imposed any obligation on the State and we have so held. Sholtz v. Board of Commissioners Everglades Drainage District, 112 Fla. 756, 150 So. 878; Martin v. Dade Muck Land Company, 95 Fla. 530, 116 So. 449; Rorick v. Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District, 57 Fed. (2nd) 1048. We think these cases conclude the question. The third and last question argued is as follows: Do the…
Authorities Cited
- Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700 (Fla. 1917)
- Bland v. Fid. Tr. Co., 71 Fla. 499 (Fla. 1916)