GRACE L. BOYNTON, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES H. HARBISON, APPELLEE
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 court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the identity of the lost pin.
Plaintiff lost a diamond pin and brought a replevin action after defendant's daughter found a similar pin. The defendant denied the found pin was the …
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 Replevin cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Grace L. Boynton was plaintiff below in a replevin action which resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendant, Charles H. Harbison.
It appears that in February 1960 the appellant lost a “Cartier” diamond circlet pin. In late March or early April 1960 the defendant’s minor daughter found a diamond pin on the public beach of Delray Beach, Florida. This circumstance became known to the appellant who proceeded to bring the replevin action aforesaid. The defendant denied that the diamond pin which was found was the same pin described in the replevin proceedings. The issue was tried before the court who found and held from the evidence that the plaintiff had not carried the requisite burden of establishing the identity of the subject pin as that which she claimed to have lost.
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for disturbing the judgment appealed. There were a considerable number of evidentiary conflicts, doubts and uncertainties as to description and value. We therefore cannot conclude that the trial court erred in holding, in effect, that the article found by the defendant’s daughter failed to fit the description of the article allegedly lost by the plaintiff as described in the complaint and by various witnesses. A plaintiff in replevin cannot prevail unless he affirmatively establishes by clear and convincing evidence his right to possession of the specific property sought to be recovered. See Bringley v. C. I. T. Corporation, 1935, 119 Fla. 529 at 537, 160 So. 680; Richbourg et al. v. Rose, 1907, 53 Fla. 173 at 190, 44 So. 69; Holliday v. McKinne, 1886, 22 Fla. 153; F.S. § 78.02(4), F.S.A.
Affirmed.
SHANNON, C. J., and KANNER and WHITE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dade Cnty. Pub. Safety Dep't v. McKENN, 219 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…tional problem, the plaintiff failed to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence. The burden was on plaintiff to prove that he was entitled to the immediate possession of the property involved herein. See Boynton v. Harbison, Fla.App. 1961, 135 So. 2d 234. Plaintiff failed to prove that he had a right to possession of the specific property, to-wit: money, which he sought to recover. This cause be and the same is, therefore, reversed and remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter a final…
Authorities Cited
- Richbourg v. Rose, 53 Fla. 173 (Fla. 1907)
- Holliday v. McKinne, 22 Fla. 153 (Fla. 1886)
- McClusky v. Trussel (Miss. 1907)
- Bringley v. C. I. T. Corp., 119 Fla. 529 (Fla. 1935)