United Independent Laundries, Inc. v. Holden

Supreme Court of Florida

United Independent Laundries, Inc. v. Holden

185 So. 152, 135 Fla. 338, 1938 Fla. LEXIS 1555

DecidedDecember 12, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 185 So. 152 (United Independent Laundries, Inc. v. Holden) 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

United Independent Laundries, Inc. v. Holden, 185 So. 152, 135 Fla. 338, 1938 Fla. LEXIS 1555 (Fla. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In an action in the circuit court for personal injuries there was a verdict for the defendant and a judgment thereon. On motions filed the court granted a motion for new trial on the fifth ground of the motion; denied a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto; granted a motion for repieader on the third and sixth grounds of the motion and vacated the verdict and judgment for the defendant. The above and also other orders were included in one general order. A writ of error was taken by the defendant under the statute (Section 4615, Compiled General Laws of 1927) to the order granting a new trial, and errors are assigned on such order granting a new trial.

The statute authorizes a writ of error to the order granting a new trial; and the fact that a repieader was ordered *339 at the same .time the .order granting a new trial was nude, does not deprive the defendant of a right to take writ of error to the order granting a new trial, though such writ of error may have the effect of making the order for repleader subject to the appellate judgment on the writ of error to the order granting a new trial.

Motion to dismiss the writ of error denied.

Terrell, C. J„ and Whitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman, and Thomas, J. J., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

In an action in the circuit court for personal injuries there was a verdict for the defendant and a judgment thereon. On motions filed the court granted a motion for new trial on the fifth ground of the motion; denied a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto; granted a motion for repieader on the third and sixth grounds of the motion and vacated the verdict and judgment for the defendant. The above and also other orders were included in one general order. A writ of error was taken by the defendant under the statute (Section 4615, Compiled General Laws of 1927) to the order granting a new trial, and errors are assigned on such order granting a new trial.

The statute authorizes a writ of error to the order granting a new trial; and the fact that a repieader was ordered *339 at the same .time the .order granting a new trial was nude, does not deprive the defendant of a right to take writ of error to the order granting a new trial, though such writ of error may have the effect of making the order for repleader subject to the appellate judgment on the writ of error to the order granting a new trial.

Motion to dismiss the writ of error denied.

Terrell, C. J„ and Whitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman, and Thomas, J. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 So. 152, 135 Fla. 338, 1938 Fla. LEXIS 1555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-independent-laundries-inc-v-holden-fla-1938.