Zackary v. Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Co.

56 So. 686, 62 Fla. 419
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJune 15, 1911
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 56 So. 686 (Zackary v. Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Co.) 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
Zackary v. Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Co., 56 So. 686, 62 Fla. 419 (Fla. 1911).

Opinion

Whitfield, C. J.

— This writ of error was taken under the statute to an order granting a new trial in an action at law. The only matter for determination is the alleged error in granting the new trial.

A motion for new trial is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial courts, and where a trial court grants such a motion the action in doing so is presumed to be in accordance with the justice and merits of the case, unless the contrary appears by the record. An order of the trial court granting a new trial should not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless it appears affirmatively from the record that there has been an abuse of a sound judicial discretion, or that some settled principle of law has been violated.

When the trial court grants a motion for new trial and one of the grounds of the motion is that the verdict is not supported by the evidence, and it does not appear upon what ground the motion was granted, and there is conflicting testimony upon a material issue in the cause, the appellate court’ will not reverse the order where there is no palpable preponderance of evidence in favor of the ver[421]*421diet. Jones v. Jacksonville Electric Co., 56 Fla. 452, 47 South. Rep. 1.

The evidence does not clearly establish that the injury alleged was proximately caused by the negligence or fault of the defendant, and there is evidence to the contrary, therefore under the rules announced in previous cases the order of the trial court granting a new trial is affirmed.

Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur; Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.

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

Related

City of Miami v. Bopp
158 So. 89 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1934)
Woods v. A. C. L. R. R. Co.
130 So. 601 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Woods ex rel. Powell v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
100 Fla. 909 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Carney v. Stringfellow
74 So. 866 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1917)
Anthony Farms Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Railway
67 So. 913 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1915)
Aberson v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
67 So. 44 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1914)
Ruff v. Georgia, Southern & Florida Railway Co.
64 So. 782 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1914)
Dunnellon Phosphate Co. v. Crystal River Lumber Co.
58 So. 786 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
56 So. 686, 62 Fla. 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zackary-v-georgia-florida-alabama-railway-co-fla-1911.