Hartline v. Friday

Supreme Court of Florida

Hartline v. Friday

191 So. 433, 140 Fla. 230, 1939 Fla. LEXIS 1094

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided October 10, 1939·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam. —

It is apparent from the record that there was conflicting testimony on issues material to the case, and we arc of the opinion that the judge of the trial court should have denied the motion for an instructed verdict in favor of the defendant at the conclusion of all the testimony, as he did when a similar motion' was made after the introduction of the testimony on behalf of the plaintiff. See Pendarvis v. Pfeifer, 132 Fla. 724, 182 South. Rep. 307.

The judgment is reversed.

Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Tiiomas, J. J., concur. Wi-iitfield, P. J., concurs in opinion and judgment. *231 Justice Brown and Chapman 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. —

It is apparent from the record that there was conflicting testimony on issues material to the case, and we arc of the opinion that the judge of the trial court should have denied the motion for an instructed verdict in favor of the defendant at the conclusion of all the testimony, as he did when a similar motion' was made after the introduction of the testimony on behalf of the plaintiff. See Pendarvis v. Pfeifer, 132 Fla. 724, 182 South. Rep. 307.

The judgment is reversed.

Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Tiiomas, J. J., concur. Wi-iitfield, P. J., concurs in opinion and judgment. *231 Justice Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.

Hartline v. Friday, 191 So. 433, 140 Fla. 230, 1939 Fla. LEXIS 1094 (Fla. 1939).

Pincite

191 So. 433 (Hartline v. Friday) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related