ALFRED GUIRKIN, ET UX.,
v.
HORACE L. EWING, ET UX.
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.
This Florida Supreme Court case affirmed a lower court's judgment in an ejectment suit concerning a boundary line dispute. The court found that the jury's verdict, based on conflicting evidence, was supported by the record and properly instructed.
Yes, the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence in the record, and the trial court properly instructed the jury on the applicable principles of law.
“The principles of law involved were properly applied by the court and the issues of fact were submitted to the jury under proper instructions by the court.”
Establishes that the legal and factual proceedings in the lower court were deemed correct.
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 an ejectment suit to determine the boundary line between two lots in a platted subdivision. The evidence presented by both parties w…
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 Ejectment Suit cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error brings for review judgment in favor of plaintiff in an ejectment suit, the purpose of which was to settle the location of a boundary line between lots in a platted subdivision.-
The principles of law involved were properly applied by the court and the issues of fact were submitted to the jury under proper instructions by the court. The evidence was conflicting. Neither side was entitled to an instructed verdict. The jury exercised its right to resolve conflicts in the evidence and returned a verdict which finds substantial support in the record. The trial judge approved the verdict by denying motion for new trial.
So the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.