Winnemore v. Morton

214 So. 2d 509
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 9, 1968·No. No. 1921·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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

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

214 So. 2d 509 (Winnemore v. Morton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

JTA Factors, Inc. v. PHILCON SERV., INC.
820 So. 2d 367 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Centro Nautico v. INTERN. MARINE CO-OP
719 So. 2d 967 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Nordyne v. Florida Mobile Home Supply
625 So. 2d 1283 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Lembo v. Broward County School Board
480 So. 2d 184 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Thomas v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
424 So. 2d 36 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)