G. F. ANDREWS
v.
ANNA S. WELLBROCK AND LUDWIG M. WELLBROCK, AS EXECUTORS OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF J. M. WELLBROCK, DECEASED
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 trial court's directed verdict for the plaintiff in a promissory note case, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on evidence or its decision to not let the case go to the jury.
No, the trial court did not commit reversible error. The evidence that was stricken was too inconclusive to support a verdict for the defendant, and the overall record did not show any reversible error.
“If the evidence stricken had gone to the jury, it was too inconclusive to support a verdict for the defendant.”
Reasoning for affirming the trial court's decision regarding the stricken evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant in error (plaintiff) sued the plaintiff in error (defendant) on a joint and several promissory note. After several pleas were demurred t…
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 Action On Promissory Note cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant in error brought an action at law against plaintiff in error to recover on a joint and several promissory note. There were eleven pleas to the declaration, the last two being “A” and “B” were pleas on equitable grounds. Seven of the pleas including equitable plea “B” went out on demurrer. The case went to trial on the issue made by the replication to pleas 4 and 8 and equitable plea “A.” The trial resulted in a directed verdict for the plaintiff, motion for new trial was denied, final judgment was entered and writ of error was prosecuted to this Court.
Three errors are assigned and urged for reversal. They challenge the order of the trial court directing a verdict for the plaintiff, his order striking evidence of certain witnesses, and his refusal to let the case go to the jury on the evidence presented.
We have carefully examined all of these assignments and no reversible error is shown to have been committed. If the evidence stricken had gone to the jury, it was too inconclusive to support a verdict for the defendant. An *764opinion on the questions argued would serve no useful purpose, so the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Ti-iomas, 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.