Walker v. Humphrey

Supreme Court of Florida

Walker v. Humphrey

118 So. 917, 96 Fla. 666

DecidedDecember 4, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 118 So. 917 (Walker v. Humphrey) 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

Walker v. Humphrey, 118 So. 917, 96 Fla. 666 (Fla. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

IT. A. Humphrey brought an action of replevin against J. C. Walker to recover certain mules and wagons that Humphrey claimed to own and that Walker detained unlawfully. At the conclusion of the testimony motion for an instructed verdict on the part of the plaintiff was granted. A new trial was denied and writ of error was taken to this court.

In the state of the record as here presented we think that error' was committed in granting the motion for an instructed verdict. It was also competent for defendant to submit evidence to prove that at the time payments were made by him where more than one account was outstanding he could direct the account to which said payments were to be credited.

The judgment below is reversed and a new trial awarded.

*667 Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Bueord, J. J., eon-cur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

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

Per Curiam.

IT. A. Humphrey brought an action of replevin against J. C. Walker to recover certain mules and wagons that Humphrey claimed to own and that Walker detained unlawfully. At the conclusion of the testimony motion for an instructed verdict on the part of the plaintiff was granted. A new trial was denied and writ of error was taken to this court.

In the state of the record as here presented we think that error' was committed in granting the motion for an instructed verdict. It was also competent for defendant to submit evidence to prove that at the time payments were made by him where more than one account was outstanding he could direct the account to which said payments were to be credited.

The judgment below is reversed and a new trial awarded.

*667 Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Bueord, J. J., eon-cur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 So. 917, 96 Fla. 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-humphrey-fla-1928.