DICKLER
v.
GATES
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 reversed a trial judge's order granting a new trial, finding that the jury's verdict of conversion was supported by evidence that the bailee failed to return the ring after demand, even though the ring was later stolen.
Yes, the trial judge erred. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the conversion occurred before the theft, specifically when the consignor demanded the ring's return after the consignment period expired and the bailee failed to comply.
“By the order appealed from the trial judge set the verdict aside and granted a new trial, assigning as his reason that it appeared "from the evidence that the defendant was unable to deliver the property because the same was stolen from him," and that, therefore, the action "should have been in case for the bailee's neglect."”
Describes the trial judge's reasoning for granting a 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 intelligenceThe appellee was entrusted with a diamond ring as a consignee and bailee. The jury found that the appellee wrongfully converted the ring. The trial ju…
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.
GIBLIN, Associate Justice.
The trial of this cause resulted in a jury verdict based obviously on the finding that the appellee had wrongfully converted a diamond ring which had been entrusted to him as consignee and bailee. By the order appealed from the trial judge set the verdict aside and granted a new trial, assigning as his reason that it appeared “from the evidence that the defendant was unable to deliver the property because the same was stolen from him,” and that, therefore, the action “should have been in case for the bailee’s neglect.”
We think the able trial judge was in error because there was ample evidence to justify the jury’s conclusion that there was a conversion before the theft. There was evidence (to which the jury gave credence) that the ring was consigned for a limited period of four days and that, after the expiration of such period and before the theft, the consignor had demanded the return of the ring and the appellee had failed to accede to the demand.
It is our judgment, therefore, that by the challenged order the trial judge erroneously invaded the jury’s province and that the order should be reversed and the court below directed to reinstate the final judgment predicated on the verdict.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Florentine Reyes v. Leonard L. Banks, 292 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)….1965); Luby Chevrolet Inc. v. Foster, 177 So. 2d 510 (Fla.App.1965); Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. McNair, 152 So. 2d 805 (Fla.App.1963); McAdams v. Armored Car Service of Florida, 139 So. 2d 435 (Fla.App. 1962); Arex Indemnity Co. v. Radin, 72 So. 2d 393 (Fla.1954). It has been urged by the Florida Supreme Court that no criterion which attempts to apply exact mathematical calculations to equitable distribution situations would be consistent with the language of the Workmen’s Compensation Statute. A…
-
White v. Reserve Ins. Co., 299 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…5); Luby Chevrolet, Inc. v. Foster, 177 So. 2d 510 (Fla.App. 1965); Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. McNair, 152 So. 2d 805 (Fla.App. 1963); McAdams v. Armored Car Serv ice of Florida, 139 So. 2d 435 (Fla.App. 1962); Arex Indemnity Co. v. Radin, 72 So. 2d 393 (Fla.1954). “It has been urged by the Florida Supreme Court that no criterion which attempts to apply exact mathematical calculations to equitable distribution situations would be consistent with the language of the Workmen’s Compensation Statute.…
-
Zurich Ins. Co. v. Renton, 189 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…e plaintiff recovered three and one-half percent of her actual damages.” The application of a principle of “equitable distribution” presents a challenge to the Court involving an endless variety of situations. See Arex Indemnity Co. v. Radin, Fla., 72 So. 2d 393, 395. The statute places upon the judge of the trial court a duty to exercise his judgment to such a degree and in such a wide area of consideration, practical, tactical, and factual, that it would be difficult, if ever possible, for the Court on ap…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence