Q. B. MCCAIN
v.
NAOMI TALLEY
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 an order granting a new trial, holding that the lower court did not abuse its discretion. The appellate court's review was limited to the propriety of the new trial order.
No, the Florida Supreme Court held that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in granting the new trial.
“This writ of error is directed to an order granting a motion for a new trial.”
Identifies the nature of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a writ of error directed to an order granting a motion for a new trial in a common law action. The motion for new trial was based on…
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 Abuse Of Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
This writ of error is directed to an order granting a motion for a new trial. Numerous questions are argued in the briefs. The motion for new trial was bottomed on eight grounds. It does' not appear which ground the court below thought warranted his order.
*233This Court has repeatedly held that on writ of error taken under the statute to an order granting a new trial in a common law action the only question before the Court is the propriety of the order granting the new trial. Miami Transit Company v. Mowrey, 103 Fla. 840, 138 So. 481; Phillips v. Garrett, 109 Fla. 435, 147 So. 857; Cheney v. Roberts, 77 Fla. 324, 81 So. 475; Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700, 74 So. 866; Beverly v. Hardaway, 66 Fla. 177, 63 So. 702.
From a careful examination of the record we are not convinced that the court below abused his discretion in granting the new trial so his judgment is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Davis, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gulf Coast Title Co. v. Walters, 125 Fla. 427 (Fla. 1936)…The order is therefore the only matter to be adjudicated on the writ of error.” To like effect are the holdings in Vining v. The American Baker Co., 118 Fla. 572, 159 So. 670; Seaboard Oil Co. v. Chalk, 118 Fla. 383, 161 So. 841; McCain v. Talley, 119 Fla. 232, 161 So. 66; Beckwith v. Bailey, 119 Fla. 316, 161 So. 576. And in the case of Kahn v. American Surety Co., 120 Fla. 50, 160 So. 335, this court speaking through Mr. Justice Terrell said: “This Court indulges the presumption that when granted, moti…
-
F. & R. Corp. v. Campbell, 123 Fla. 130 (Fla. 1936)…on for new trial be granted; that the judgment heretofore entered herein dated July 13, 1934, be vacated; and that sixty days from date be allowed for settling a bill of exceptions. To which plaintiff excepts. Exception noted.” In McCain v. Talley, 119 Fla. 232, 161 Sou. 66, we said: “This Court has repeatedly held that on writ of error taken under the statute to an order granting a new trial in a common law action the only question before the Court is the propriety of the order granting the new trial. Mi…
Authorities Cited
- Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700 (Fla. 1917)
- Cheney v. Roberts, 77 Fla. 324 (Fla. 1919)
- Miami Transit Co. v. Fidella Mowrey, 103 Fla. 840 (Fla. 1931)
- Phillips v. Garrett, 109 Fla. 435 (Fla. 1933)
- Beverly v. Hardaway, 66 Fla. 177 (Fla. 1913)