Wolfe v. Darby

Supreme Court of Florida

Wolfe v. Darby

193 So. 749, 141 Fla. 713

DecidedFebruary 9, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 193 So. 749 (Wolfe v. Darby) 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

Wolfe v. Darby, 193 So. 749, 141 Fla. 713 (Fla. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The sole question presented by the plaintiff in error is the inadequacy of the amount awarded him by the jury.

The testimony is in sharp conflict. After a study of it we have the view that the jury were well within their province in reaching the finding and that no error clearly appears.

Affirmed.

Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur. *714 Whitfield, P. J., concurs in opinion and judgment. Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.

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

Per Curiam.

The sole question presented by the plaintiff in error is the inadequacy of the amount awarded him by the jury.

The testimony is in sharp conflict. After a study of it we have the view that the jury were well within their province in reaching the finding and that no error clearly appears.

Affirmed.

Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur. *714 Whitfield, P. J., concurs in opinion and judgment. Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 So. 749, 141 Fla. 713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolfe-v-darby-fla-1940.