CHITTY & CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION,
v.
C. A. GRANTHUM
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.
This case involves a procedural clarification by the Florida Supreme Court regarding a prior ruling. The court recalled its mandate to correct an error in its original opinion, clarifying that its previous reversal was of an order striking a motion for a new trial, not the final judgment itself. The case was remanded to the lower court to consider the merits of the new trial motion.
The Florida Supreme Court held that its prior reversal only affected the order striking the motion for a new trial, not the final judgment. The motion for a new trial was reinstated and must be heard on its merits by the lower court.
“The legal effect thereof was not to reverse the final judgment entered under date of December 19, 1939, but only the order striking the motion for a new trial.”
This quote explains the limited scope of the court's prior reversal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final judgment was entered for the plaintiff in the lower court. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which the lower court struck. The Flo…
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 Recall Of Mandate cases and more on FLexlaw
The original opinion in the case at bar was filed on February 25, 1941, and the mandate of this Court issued thereon under date of March 15, 1941. On April 11, 1941, an order was entered granting a motion, supported by a stipulation of counsel of record for the respective parties, to recall the mandate previously issued and to correct an error appearing in the opinion.
The record here discloses that a final judgment for plaintiff below was entered on December 19, 1939, by the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, and subsequent thereto a motion for a new trial was duly presented and on March 20, 1940, the lower court entered an order granting the motion to strike the motion made on the part of the defendant below for a new trial, and on writ of error to this Court the said order striking the motion for a new trial was by this Court reversed. The legal effect thereof was not to reverse the final judgment entered under date of December 19, 1939, but only the order striking the motion for a new trial. The motion for a new trial was thereby reinstated, and upon the going down of the mandate herein *758the duty of the lower court will be, upon lawful notice, to hear and consider the merits of the motion for a new trial and make such an order as will dispose of the motion for a new trial on its merits as filed in this cause by the defendant below under date of December 18, 1939.
The original opinion entered herein is hereby reaffirmed, except as modified by this clarification opinion.
It is so ordered.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Terrell, Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.