GULF COAST TITLE COMPANY
v.
W. B. WALTERS
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.
Gulf Coast Title Company challenges an order granting a new trial in a bench trial, arguing the trial court erred in granting the motion. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the new trial order, applying the presumption that challenged orders are correct absent clear record evidence to the contrary.
The court affirmed the order granting the new trial, holding that (1) the failure to grant the motion for nonsuit was not error under the circumstances, but (2) the appellate court must presume the new trial order was proper absent record evidence to the contrary, and (3) because the plaintiff in error failed to include a bill of exceptions showing the evidence, the court cannot determine if the judgment was supported by law and evidence.
“This Court will not judge the correctness of the judgment by the reasons therefor expressed by the trial court, but will affirm the judgment unless it be made clearly to appear that an erroneous result was reached.”
Establishes the presumption of correctness that appellate courts apply to challenged orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a bench trial (jury waived), the trial court announced judgment in favor of the defendant after the close of plaintiff's case. The plaintiff then m…
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 Presumption Of Correctness For Trial Court Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error brings for review an order granting a new trial on motion timely presented.
The motion contained three grounds', as follows:
“1. Judgment is contrary to law.
“2. Judgment is contrary to evidence.
“3. Judgment is contrary to the law and evidence, and for other good and sufficient reasons.”
The order on the motion was as follows:
“After argument of counsel for respective parties, the motion is granted, on the first ground of the motion in that petitioner’s motion for nonsuit should have been granted. Defendant by counsel excepts.”
This Court will not judge the correctness of the judgment by the reasons therefor expressed by the trial court, but will affirm the judgment unless it be made clearly to appear that an erroneous result was reached. Scott v. National City *136Bank, 107 Fla. 818, 146 Sou. 573. Hoopes, etc., v. Crane, 56 Fla. 395, 47 Sou. 992; Dunnellon Phosphate Co. v. Crystal River Lbr. Co., 63 Fla. 131, 58 So. 786; Goodno v. South Fla. Farms Co., 95 Fla. 90, 116 Sou. 23.
The appellate court must, in the absence of record evidence to the contrary, presume that the order or judgment challenged by appeal or writ of error is the order or judgment which should have been entered. McConnell v. Sullivan, 37 Fla. 576, 20 Sou. 762; O’steen v. State, 92 Fla. 1062, 111 Sou. 725; White v. Crandall, 105 Fla. 70, 143 Sou. 871.
The plaintiff in error contends that the order granting a new trial should be reversed because the record shows that the trial judge apprehended that he had committed error in not granting the plaintiff a nonsuit on motion made ore tenus after the court, trying the case without a jury, after the close of plaintiff’s case, had announced that judgment would be entered in favor of defendant.
The failure to grant motion for nonsuit under the existing circumstances was without error. J. Schnarr & Co., et al., v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Corporation, 118 Fla. 258, 159 Sou. 39.
The motion for new trial, however, did not specify the ruling of the court in this regard as a ground for new trial. The plaintiff in error here was defendant in the court below and the judgment which was set aside in granting motion for new trial was in favor of defendant. The motion for new trial was made by plaintiff and when defendant took writ of error the burden was on it to show reversible error.
The plaintiff in error failed to bring here in the transcript a bill of exceptions exhibiting the evidence adduced in the lower court upon which the court entered judgment *137in favor of the defendant and, therefore, we cannot determine whether or not the verdict and judgment entered by the court was supported by the law and the evidence. The motion for new trial alleged that the verdict (the findings of the court in the absence of a jury which had been waived) and the judgment were contrary to the law and to the evidence. The Court granted the motion. We must assume, in the absence of record showing to the contrary, that the new trial was warranted by the state of the record then before the trial court and affirm the order.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. Betsie Vickers, 143 Fla. 54 (Fla. 1940)…e rulings of the trial court and it is the duty of the party resorting to an appellate court to make the errors complained of clearly to appear. See Flagler Finance Corporation v. Therrell, 118 Fla. 596, 159 So. 868; Gulf Coast Title Co. v. Walters, 124 Fla. 134, 168 So. 537. We think the case at bar is ruled by Collins v. McKelvain, 138 Fla. 463, 189 So. 655. We fail to find error in the record. The decree appealed from is hereby affirmed. Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur. Buford, J., concurs in…
-
Cnty. of Okeechobee v. The Fla. Nat'l Bank of Jacksonville, 145 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1940)…Fla. 114; Sherlock v. Varn, 64 Fla. 447; Warren v. Warren, 66 Fla. 138; Eli Witt Co. v. Somers, 99 Fla. 592, 127 So. 333; Ritch v. Adams, 102 Fla. 983, 136 So. 718; Knight v. City of Miami, 127 Fla. 585, 173 So. 801; Gulf Coast Title Co. v. Walters, 124 Fla. 134, 168 So. 537. The bill of complaint iterated and reiterated that a large sum of the county’s money was on deposit in The Florida National Bank at the time Peoples Bank closed and at the time of the institution of this suit. Among other things the…
-
Heuacker v. Farrelly, 135 Fla. 47 (Fla. 1938)…49 South. Rep. text 408, 47 South Rep. 31; Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Hollis, 58 Fla. 268, 50 South. Rep. 985; Bell v. Niles, 61 Fla. 114, 55 South. Rep. 392.” See also Smith v. McEwen, 119 Fla. 568, 161 So. 68; Gulf Coast Title Co. v. Walters, 124 Fla. 134, 168 So. 537. The pleadings in this case make material the following issues: (a) did Thomas Comber own the car which struck the plaintiff; (b) was the defendant Farrelly the agent of Thomas Comber; (c) was the car operated by Farrelly with the know…
Authorities Cited
- Hoopes v. Crane, 56 Fla. 395 (Fla. 1908)
- O'Steen v. State, 111 So. 725 (Fla. 1926)
- White v. Crandall, 105 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1931)
- City of DeLand v. Fearington, 108 Fla. 498 (Fla. 1933)
- Dunnellon Phosphate Co. v. Crystal River Lumber Co., 63 Fla. 131 (Fla. 1912)
- J. Schnarr & Co. v. Virginia-Carolina Chem. Corp., 118 Fla. 258 (Fla. 1934)
- Fletcher Scott v. The Nat'l City Bank of Tampa (Fla. 1931)
- Goodno v. S. Fla. Farms Co., 95 Fla. 90 (Fla. 1928)
- McConnell v. Sullivan, 37 Fla. 576 (Fla. 1896)