WILLIAM WILSON, RESPONDENT,
v.
FRANKLIN DIBBLE, APPELLANT
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 1872 Florida Supreme Court case, the court upheld a jury verdict in a dispute between Wilson and Dibble regarding whether a settlement receipt constituted full payment of a debt, finding no grounds to overturn the jury's judgment despite some conflicting evidence.
The court affirmed the jury verdict, holding that while some conflicting testimony existed regarding whether a final settlement had occurred, the evidence was not so palpably against the verdict that the court should overturn it. The jury's judgment must be upheld.
“It is generally with great reluctance that courts set aside the verdict of a jury upon-a consideration of .the testimony alono; and a second verdict upon the same facts, although the judges may have come to a different, conclusion, is too strongly fortified by the deliberate judgment of twenty-four men, to be disturbed except.for strong reasons.”
Establishes the high bar for overturning jury verdicts and the deference courts give to jury judgments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDibble's agents provided Wilson with a sum of money that they believed was the balance due on an account. Wilson signed a receipt in full upon receivi…
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 Jury Verdict Review cases and more on FLexlaw
delivered the opinion of the court.
It is generally with great reluctance that courts set aside the verdict of a jury upon-a consideration of .the testimony alono; and a second verdict upon the same facts, although the judges may have come to a different, conclusion, is too strongly fortified by the deliberate judgment of twenty-four men, to be disturbed except.for strong reasons.
Where a verdict is so palpably against evidence or against a very strong preponderance of evidence that great injustice seems to have been done, leading to the conclusion that the verdict was the result of prejudices or excitement or other *50improper influences, there should be no hesitation about setting it aside. In the present case, however, it is not discovered that any good reason exists for such interference, and there is nothing to indicate that upon another trial the verdict would not be the same. There is some conflict between the statements of the respective parties in relation to the fact of a final accounting and settlement, or agreeing upon a basis of settlement. Other witnesses seem to support the testimony of the defendant, but their testimony goes rather to show their impressions and conclusions, than to show the facts. A receipt in full was signed by plaintiff on receiving a sum which the defendant’s agents believed and informed him was the balance due; but plaintiff says he was not aware that it was a receip’t acknowledging full payment; that it was signed in haste without reading it, and that it was not in fact a full payment and that he had never regarded it, or agreed to regard it, as a full satisfaction. Although it may be that we should have been satisfied of the fairness of the verdict if it had been otherwise, we cannot say that these two juries have erred in judgment.
The judgment must be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Whitney, 65 Fla. 72 (Fla. 1913)…al, and there is evidence to support it, an appellate court should refuse to disturb it, in the absence of any showing that the jurors must have been improperly influenced by consideration outside of the evidence.” Idem, p. 284. In Wilson v. Dibble, 14 Fla. 47, this court said a new trial should not be granted unless the preponderance is such as to warrant the opinion that the verdict was produced by improper influences, and particularly where two juries have rendered the same verdict upon the same state…
-
Huling v. The Fla. Sav. Bank & Real Est. Exch., 19 Fla. 695 (Fla. 1883)
-
McMurray v. Basnett, 18 Fla. 609 (Fla. 1882)
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence