Toemmes v. Proctor

136 So. 622, 102 Fla. 918
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided September 14, 1931·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

— Tbe question presented in this case is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict rendered, which has the approval of the trial judge who denied a motion for a directed verdict as well as a motion for a new trial. There is found in the record substantial evidence to support the verdict and judgment rendered, and therefore the judgment should be and is hereby affirmed. See 5th Headnote Pillet vs. Erschick, 99 Fla. 484, 126 So. 784.

Affirmed.

Whiteield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.

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

Toemmes v. Proctor, 136 So. 622, 102 Fla. 918 (Fla. 1931).

136 So. 622 (Toemmes v. Proctor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pillet v. Ershick
126 So. 784 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)