R. R. RILEY
v.
J. H. CORBETT
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 a lower court's judgment on a promissory note, finding the judgment to be supported by ample evidence and free from error after reviewing the record and briefs.
Yes, the judgment is amply supported by the evidence and is free from error.
“We have examined the record and the briefs and find the judgment appealed from to be amply supported.”
This quote establishes the court's basis for affirming the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued the defendant on a promissory note. The defendant filed two pleas: that the note was not his, and that he had already paid the clai…
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 Affirmance Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
This writ of error is to a final judgment in an action at law on a promissory note. There were two pleas to the declaration, viz.: (1) The note sued on was not the note of this defendant and (2) That he has heretofore discharged and settled plaintiff’s claim by payment. Evidence was taken and the trial court instructed the jury as to their verdict which was returned for the plaintiff and final judgment was entered.
We have examined the record and the briefs and find the judgment appealed from to be amply supported. No *328question is presented on which an opinion would serve any useful purpose. The judgment is free from error and is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Ti-iomas, J. J., concur.
Brown, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Whitfield and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.