Jacksonville Traction Co. v. Chisholm

Supreme Court of Florida

Jacksonville Traction Co. v. Chisholm

143 So. 881, 106 Fla. 726

DecidedSeptember 26, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 143 So. 881 (Jacksonville Traction Co. v. Chisholm) 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

Jacksonville Traction Co. v. Chisholm, 143 So. 881, 106 Fla. 726 (Fla. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is *727 no reversible error in said judgment except that because of the apparent eoutributory negligence of the plaintiff in the court below and because of paucity of the injury suffered, the judgment is excessive. It is therefore the judgment of this court that if the defendant in error here, plaintiff in the court below shall within ten days from the date of the filing of the mandate herein in the court below enter of record a remittitur in the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) judgment for the remainder of the judgment, to-wit two thousand dollars as of the date of the original judgment shall stand affirmed. Otherwise the judgment shall stand reversed and a new trial awarded.

It is so ordered.

Buford, C.J. and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is *727 no reversible error in said judgment except that because of the apparent eoutributory negligence of the plaintiff in the court below and because of paucity of the injury suffered, the judgment is excessive. It is therefore the judgment of this court that if the defendant in error here, plaintiff in the court below shall within ten days from the date of the filing of the mandate herein in the court below enter of record a remittitur in the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) judgment for the remainder of the judgment, to-wit two thousand dollars as of the date of the original judgment shall stand affirmed. Otherwise the judgment shall stand reversed and a new trial awarded.

It is so ordered.

Buford, C.J. and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 So. 881, 106 Fla. 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacksonville-traction-co-v-chisholm-fla-1932.