Dania Lumber Supply Co. v. Senter, (1933)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 8
Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Attorneys: Newman T. Miller and C. E. Farrington, E. W. R. C. Davis, Wm. C. Hodges and Waller Pepper, for Plaintiffs in Error.
Dunbar H. Johnson, Jr., for Defendants in Error.
Filed: Dec. 22, 1933
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the circuit court be, and the same is her
Summary: This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the circuit court be, and the same is here..
More
Section 4367, C. G. L., 2700 R. G. S., gives parties to trials the right to except to any erroneous chargegiven by doing so at the first time in a motion for a new trial. The statute supersedes the old rule on the subject of exceptions to charges which were required to be made at thetime charges were given. I concur in affirmance because I think the error in a charge given to the effect that plaintiff could recover for their "alleged" as distinguished from their "proven" damages was cured by the charge as a whole, which charge as a whole was not misleading.
ON REHEARING.
Source: CourtListener
