Wolfe v. Darby

Supreme Court of Florida

Wolfe v. Darby

193 So. 749, 141 Fla. 713

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided February 9, 1940·Published

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.

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

Pincite

193 So. 749 (Wolfe v. Darby) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.