BARNARD KILGORE
v.
EDGAR E. HUDSON, A MINOR BY W. E. HUDSON, HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND
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 jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff after a new trial, finding substantial evidence supported the jury's decision regarding a fraud claim. This case was a retrial after a previous judgment was reversed due to the exclusion of fraud evidence.
Yes, the jury's verdict and judgment are supported by substantial evidence, and the court will not substitute its judgment for that of the jury when the evidence is in conflict.
“we reversed the judgment in this case because appellant was not permitted to prove a charge of fraud perpetrated on him with reference to the age of appellee Edgar E. Hudson.”
Explains the reason for the previous reversal and the basis for the new trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involved a retrial after a prior judgment was reversed by the Florida Supreme Court because the appellant was not allowed to present evidenc…
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 Fraud cases and more on FLexlaw
In Kilgore v. Hudson, et al., reported in 148 Fla. 580, 4 So. (2nd) 865, we reversed the judgment in this case because appellant was not permitted to prove a charge of fraud perpetrated on him with reference to the age of appellee Edgar E. Hudson. On a new trial, the plea of fraud was entered and evidence thereon permitted. The court also gave appropriate instructions and a verdict’ for plaintiff was returned, to which the present appeal was prosecuted.
Several questions are urged but the dominant one is whether or not the verdict and judgment are supported by *716substantial evidence. We have examined the record - and while the evidence is in conflict we find ample support for the verdict. We are not at liberty to substitute our judgment for that of the jury in this state of the record.
Affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Barnard Kilgore v. Hudson, 148 Fla. 580 (Fla. 1941)
- In re the Est. of Nellie Eustis Uecke, 148 Fla. 579 (Fla. 1941)