Mizell Live Stock Co. v. Pollard

71 So. 31, 71 Fla. 192
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided February 15, 1916·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a writ of error directed to the granting of a new trial.

The motion for a new trial contained several grounds which questioned the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and also claimed newly discovered evidence. The trial Judge simply granted the motion without specifying the ground upon which his order was based. We have examined the transcript of the record and are of the opinion that the order must be affirmed upon the authority of Ruff v. Georgia Southern & Florida Ry. Co., 67 Fla. 224, 64 South. Rep. 782, and Chancey v. Williams, 56 Fla. 215, 47 South. Rep. 811.

Order affirmed.

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

Mizell Live Stock Co. v. Pollard, 71 So. 31, 71 Fla. 192 (Fla. 1916).

71 So. 31 (Mizell Live Stock Co. v. Pollard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kight v. American Eagle Fire Insurance
179 So. 792 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
Beckwith v. Bailey
161 So. 576 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)
Carney v. Stringfellow
74 So. 866 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1917)