S. MCL. ESTES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
GEORGE A. MANWARREN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
In this assumpsit action over a disputed $5,000 payment, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a directed verdict for the plaintiff, holding that conflicting evidence as to the nature of the transaction—whether the defendant was holding the money in trust for a failed syndicate or applying it toward a land purchase—presented a jury question that the trial court improperly resolved.
The trial court erred in directing a verdict because the conflicting testimony about the parties' agreement presented a question of fact that should have been submitted to the jury. A directed verdict is improper unless the evidence is such that no reasonable jury view favorable to the non-moving party can be sustained.
“The court should not direct a verdict for one party unless the evidence is such that no view which the jury may lay [sic] fully take of it favorable to the other party can be sustained.”
States the legal standard for when directed verdicts are permissible, emphasizing the jury's role in resolving factual disputes.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceManwarren paid $5,000 to Estes, with the parties offering conflicting accounts of the agreement. Manwarren testified he was joining a syndicate to pur…
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 Question Of Fact For Jury cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an action in assumpsit, instituted by George A. Manwarren, defendant in error, against S. McL. Estes, upon the common counts for money had and received. Defendant pleads the general issue. The testimony shows that plaintiff paid over to defendant the sum of $5,000.00 sued for. There is conflict in the evidence as to the agreement had between the parties at the time of paying over this money. Testimony of the plaintiff is in substance that as one of a syndicate which was being formed to take up a contract for purchase of certain lands, he paid to defendant $5,000.00; that defendant Estes was to hold the money until the others paid their share; and that the syndicate was not formed, whereupon plaintiff demanded return of the money paid and payment was refused.
The defendant testified in substance that he was one of four owners of certain lands at Fort Meade; that Taylor and associates held a contract for purchase of said lands, requiring certain payments to be made; that plaintiff upon paying said amount of $5,000.00 stated he was one of the associates of Taylor, and that he was making payment to apply upon the purchase price of the property.
After all the evidence of the parties had been submitted, the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $5,000.00 sued for.
The court should not direct a verdict for one party unless the evidence is such that no view which the jury may law*740fully take of it favorable to the other party can be sustained. Johnson v. L. & N. R. Co., 59 Fla. 305, 52 So. R. 195; Section 4363 (2696) Comp. Gen. Laws of Florida, 1927.
This case presented a question of fact which, on account of the conflict in the evidence, should have been passed upon by the jury.
The judgment is reversed.
— The record in this cause having been considered by the Court, and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chapter 14553, Acts of 1929, adopted by the Court as its opinion, it is considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the judgment of the court below should be, and the same is hereby, reversed.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Merchs. Transp. Co. v. Daniel, 109 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1933)…ing a verdict the court is governed practically by the same rules that are applicable to demurrers to the evidence. Gunn v. Jacksonville, 67 Fla. 40, 64 Sou. Rep. 435; Stevens v. Tampa Electric Co., 81 Fla. 512, 88 Sou. Rep. 303; Estes v. Manwarren, 100 Fla. 738, 129 Sou. Rep. 917; Gulf Refining Co. v. Ankeny, 102 Fla. 151, 135 Sou. Rep. 521. Viewing the testimony and other evidence in this case in its most favorable aspect to the plaintiff below, the jury would have been warranted in finding that the driv…
-
Ulsch v. Mountain City Mill Co., 103 Fla. 932 (Fla. 1931)…he particular judgment directed. Accordingly a writ of certiorari will lie to such an adjudication of the Circuit Court made in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over inferior courts. Hartford Accident & Industrial Ins. Co. vs. Thomasville, 100 Fla. 738, 130 Sou. Rep. 7; Waddell v. McAllister, 97 Fla. 1054, 122 Sou. Rep. 578. The ultimate adjudication here is to quash the judgment or the writ of certiorari after it has been issued. Pick v. Adams, 98 Fla. 140, 123 Sou. Rep. 547. It is well establi…
Authorities Cited
- Bessie Johnson by her next friend David Johnson v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 59 Fla. 305 (Fla. 1910)