ROBERT B. MACKEY, ETC., ET AL.,
v.
GEORGE C. MCLARTY
Writ of error brings for review judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action of ejectment.
Plaintiff in error has presented questions for our consideration but the questions appear to be based on assumptions which are not supported by the record. The real question presented by the record is simply whether or not the evidence is sufficient to support the judgment. It is.
A study of the record discloses no reversible error. So,, the judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
*633Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown ,and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perry v. State, 146 Fla. 187 (Fla. 1941)…improper remarks of counsel to the jury. “The objection was sustained. “The motion for a mistrial was denied.” The purpose of showing a witness has been previously convicted of a crime is to affect his credibility. Madison v. State, 138 Fla. 467, 189 So. 832; Taylor v. State, supra. Where a witness has been impeached by proof of a prior conviction of crime, he may show the fact that he has served his time, or had been paroled or pardoned. Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, Vol. 3, p. 2300. See Harris v. Commo…
-
Lawhorne v. State, 500 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1986)…ffect of the disclosures. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 380 So. 2d 1024 (Fla.1979); Mead v. State, 86 So. 2d 773 (Fla.1956); Noeling v. State, 40 So. 2d 120 (Fla.1949); Perry v. State, 146 Fla. 187, 200 So. 525 (1941); Madison v. State, 138 Fla. 467, 189 So. 832 (1939); Sneed v. State, 397 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Leonard v. State, 386 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Goodman v. State, 336 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert. denied, 342 So. 2d 1103 (Fla.1977). In Noeling v. State, 40 So. 2d 120 (Fla…
-
Mead v. State, 86 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1956)…8 So. 603. However, it is proper for a defendant on his own account to state the nature of the crime of which he was convicted because the effect upon his testimony might vary according to the severity of the offense. Madison v. State, 138 Fla. 467, 189 So. 832. In the instant case the initial question, was asked by the appellant’s attorney, instead of the county solicitor, and the question was incomplete. The appellant was not asked if he had been convicted of crime, but simply if he had been convicted —…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence