St. Andrews Bay Lbr. Co. v. Bernard, (1932)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 18
Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Attorneys: R. E. Hamrick, for Plaintiff in Error;
Haskins, Gregory Gordon, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Jul. 19, 1932
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: In the case there was a motion for a new trial made, which was denied, but no exception was taken to the ruling, so the sufficiency of the evidence to support the plaintiff's recovery cannot be reviewed on this writ of error in so far as the denial of the motion for a new trial is concerned. See St. Andrews Bay Lumber Company vs. Mark Bernard, et al., a companion case this day decided. The order denying the defendant's motion for an instructed verdict, which was properly excepted to, cannot be r
Summary: In the case there was a motion for a new trial made, which was denied, but no exception was taken to the ruling, so the sufficiency of the evidence to support the plaintiff's recovery cannot be reviewed on this writ of error in so far as the denial of the motion for a new trial is concerned. See St. Andrews Bay Lumber Company vs. Mark Bernard, et al., a companion case this day decided. The order denying the defendant's motion for an instructed verdict, which was properly excepted to, cannot be re..
More
I agree to the affirmance for the reason given in the concurring opinion in the companion case.
Source: CourtListener
