Parrish v. Clark, (1933)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 7
Judges: BROWN, J. —
Attorneys: Blackwell Gray, for Plaintiff in Error;
Dunbar H. Johnson, Jr., for Defendants in Error.
Filed: Jan. 09, 1933
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This is a writ of error taken to a judgment at law awarding plaintiff below damages for injuries alleged to have been negligently inflicted upon her in defendant's hospital. The declaration sounded both in tort and contract, but the nature of the action is largely immaterial on the question of whether or not the judgment should be reversed on the sole ground that liability is not shown by the evidence. The gist of the cause of action was the asserted right to recover damages for personal injurie
Summary: This is a writ of error taken to a judgment at law awarding plaintiff below damages for injuries alleged to have been negligently inflicted upon her in defendant's hospital. The declaration sounded both in tort and contract, but the nature of the action is largely immaterial on the question of whether or not the judgment should be reversed on the sole ground that liability is not shown by the evidence. The gist of the cause of action was the asserted right to recover damages for personal injuries..
More
There were two separate and distinct verdicts and two separate and distinct judgments rendered in this case, one for $2,500. in favor of Mary Lee Clark and the other for $500. in favor of Oscar Clark. They were separately
entered on the same day for separate causes of action set forth in one and the same declaration as permitted by the statute. The writ of error is directed to one judgment "in a certain cause which is in our said Circuit Court before you, between Oscar Clark and Mary Lee Clark, by her husband, next friend, Oscar Clark, as plaintiffs, and Mary E. Parrish, a feme sole, operating and doing business under the name of Victoria Hospital, as defendant." It is impossible to say to which of the judgments this writ of error is directed. It is expressly directed to a single judgment, whereas there were two judgments referred to in the writ of error. It seems to me therefore, that this court has never acquired jurisdiction of either judgment and that the writ of error should be dismissed, rather than affirmed.
Source: CourtListener
