Judges: BROWN, J.
Attorneys: Shipp, Evans Kline, for Plaintiff in Error;
McKay, Dixon DeJarnette, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Jun. 04, 1937
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: The judgment in this case must be reversed upon the authority of the recent decision of this Court, *Page 419 handed down during the present term, in the case of Dudley v. Harrison McCready Co., 127 Fla. 687 , 173 So. 820 . There is in this case, however, one question which was not presented in the case above cited, but in our opinion it does not change the result. At the trial, after the close of plaintiff's case, the defendant moved for a directed verdict. The trial judge announced that he wou
Summary: The judgment in this case must be reversed upon the authority of the recent decision of this Court, *Page 419 handed down during the present term, in the case of Dudley v. Harrison McCready Co., 127 Fla. 687 , 173 So. 820 . There is in this case, however, one question which was not presented in the case above cited, but in our opinion it does not change the result. At the trial, after the close of plaintiff's case, the defendant moved for a directed verdict. The trial judge announced that he woul..
More
For the most recent opinion of this subject see Aetna Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 57 S. Ct. 908, 81 L. Ed. ___, decided May 17, 1937, wherein a full discussion is to be found. Conceding the propriety of the practice of submitting a case to a trial jury on a reserved ruling on a motion for directed verdict, even withconsent of the parties, the limit of the court's authority in the premises, after verdict actually rendered, is to thereafter grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict should have been directed for the opposite party as a matter of law which would therefore make the verdict contrary to law a recognized ground for new trial. I think the Court could grant a new trial without separate motion under such circumstances.
