Winnemore v. Morton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Winnemore v. Morton

214 So. 2d 509

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 9, 1968

DocketNo. 1921

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 214 So. 2d 509 (Winnemore v. Morton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Winnemore v. Morton, 214 So. 2d 509 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

OWEN, Judge.

Appellant, defendant below, suffered an adverse jury verdict in a suit on a promissory note, and raises on this appeal the question of the weight and sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict for the plaintiff. Defendant did not move for a directed verdict at any time during the trial nor did he file a motion for a new trial. Defendant must make either a timely motion for directed verdict, 6551 Collins Avenue Corp. v. Millen, Fla.1958, 104 So. 2d 337, or a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, Ruth v. Sorensen, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 10, and properly assign as error the denial of such motion, if he wishes to preserve the right to appellate review of the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. Having made neither a timely motion for directed verdict nor a motion for new trial, defendant cannot question the legal sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. City of Pompano Beach, Florida v. Edwards, Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 144.

The judgment is affirmed.

WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.

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

OWEN, Judge.

Appellant, defendant below, suffered an adverse jury verdict in a suit on a promissory note, and raises on this appeal the question of the weight and sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict for the plaintiff. Defendant did not move for a directed verdict at any time during the trial nor did he file a motion for a new trial. Defendant must make either a timely motion for directed verdict, 6551 Collins Avenue Corp. v. Millen, Fla.1958, 104 So. 2d 337, or a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, Ruth v. Sorensen, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 10, and properly assign as error the denial of such motion, if he wishes to preserve the right to appellate review of the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. Having made neither a timely motion for directed verdict nor a motion for new trial, defendant cannot question the legal sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. City of Pompano Beach, Florida v. Edwards, Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 144.

The judgment is affirmed.

WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 So. 2d 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winnemore-v-morton-fladistctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack