City of Miami v. Chase

Supreme Court of Florida

City of Miami v. Chase

128 So. 848, 99 Fla. 1335

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided June 7, 1930·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon consideration of the transcript of the record and the briefs in this case, it appears that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, but that upon the evidence, the verdict and judgment are excessive in amount. The order of this Court is that the judgment of the Court below will stand affirmed as of the date of its rendition, provided defendant in error shall, within thirty days after the going down of the mandate, enter a remittitur of $1,000.00, as of *1336 the date of such judgment; otherwise, upon failure to enter the remittitur indicated, within said thirty days, the judgment of the court below is hereby reversed.

Terrell, 0. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., concur in the judgment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Upon consideration of the transcript of the record and the briefs in this case, it appears that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, but that upon the evidence, the verdict and judgment are excessive in amount. The order of this Court is that the judgment of the Court below will stand affirmed as of the date of its rendition, provided defendant in error shall, within thirty days after the going down of the mandate, enter a remittitur of $1,000.00, as of *1336 the date of such judgment; otherwise, upon failure to enter the remittitur indicated, within said thirty days, the judgment of the court below is hereby reversed.

Terrell, 0. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., concur in the judgment.

City of Miami v. Chase, 128 So. 848, 99 Fla. 1335 (Fla. 1930).

Pincite

128 So. 848 (City of Miami v. Chase) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.