City of Pensacola v. Quina, Jr.

Supreme Court of Florida

City of Pensacola v. Quina, Jr.

189 So. 688, 138 Fla. 510, 1939 Fla. LEXIS 1439

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 6, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 So. 688 (City of Pensacola v. Quina, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Pensacola v. Quina, Jr., 189 So. 688, 138 Fla. 510, 1939 Fla. LEXIS 1439 (Fla. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam. —

The writ of error herein was taken by the plaintiff below upon the ground that the amount of *511 damages awarded by the verdict and adjudged by the trial court to the plaintiff, is' inadequate for the alleged breach of contract rights in a street paving undertaken.

It is not entirely clear that the contract rights of the parties, as such rights could reasonably have been interpreted by the court and the jury, require as matter of law a greater award of damages to the plaintiff than that fixed by the jury and approved by the trial court in denying a motion for new trial; therefore, it is not shown that there is an abuse of discretion by the trial judge or a miscarriage of justice, and the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur. Thomas, J., concurs in opinion and judgment. Justices Terrell and Buford not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.

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

Per Curiam. —

The writ of error herein was taken by the plaintiff below upon the ground that the amount of *511 damages awarded by the verdict and adjudged by the trial court to the plaintiff, is' inadequate for the alleged breach of contract rights in a street paving undertaken.

It is not entirely clear that the contract rights of the parties, as such rights could reasonably have been interpreted by the court and the jury, require as matter of law a greater award of damages to the plaintiff than that fixed by the jury and approved by the trial court in denying a motion for new trial; therefore, it is not shown that there is an abuse of discretion by the trial judge or a miscarriage of justice, and the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur. Thomas, J., concurs in opinion and judgment. Justices Terrell and Buford not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 So. 688, 138 Fla. 510, 1939 Fla. LEXIS 1439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-pensacola-v-quina-jr-fla-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack