FRANK L. ARMISTEAD
v.
J. F. WATERS
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 judgment of non-suit in a malicious prosecution case, finding the evidence insufficient to support more than nominal damages.
No, the evidence was insufficient to support a verdict for more than nominal damages.
“The evidence was entirely insufficient to warrant the jury in returning a verdict against the plaintiff in any sum except merely nominal damages in so small an amount as to be of no consequence.”
This quote explains the court's primary reason for affirming the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff filed a suit for malicious prosecution, but the declaration alleged no special damages. The evidence presented at trial was deemed insuf…
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 Nonsuit cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error brings for review judgment of non-suit with bill of exceptions.
The suit was one for alleged malicious prosecution.
The declaration alleged no special damages. The evidence was entirely insufficient to warrant the jury in returning a verdict against the plaintiff in any sum except merely nominal damages in so small an amount as to be of no consequence.
At the close of plaintiff’s testimony the court announced that it would grant defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. *408Thereupon, plaintiff took judgment of non-suit with bill of exceptions.
The record discloses no reversible error.
The judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, 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.