TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Zackary v. Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Co.

A. D. Zackary, in Error v. Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Company, a Corporation, in Error

Zackary v. Ga., Fla. & Ala. Ry. Co., 62 Fla. 419 (1911)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Florida · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 15, 1911
Judges
Cockrell, Hocker, Parkhill, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield
Citations
62 Fla. 419
Headnotes
1. A motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of 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, onthat some settled principle of law has been violated. 2. When the trial court grants a motion for a 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 verdict.
Summary
This case was decided by Division. A. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Leon County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Whitfield

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

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 diet. 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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1912: 11914: 21915: 11917: 11930: 21934: 119122026peak 1914 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ruff v. Georgia, Southern & Florida Railway Co.64 So. 782 (Fla. 1914)
  2. Carney v. Stringfellow74 So. 866 (Fla. 1917)
  3. Aberson v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad67 So. 44 (Fla. 1914)
  4. Dunnellon Phosphate Co. v. Crystal River Lumber Co.63 Fla. 131 (1912)
  5. Woods v. A. C. L. R. R. Co.130 So. 601 (Fla. 1930)
  6. City of Miami v. Bopp158 So. 89 (Fla. 1934)

Most recent

  1. City of Miami v. Bopp158 So. 89 (Fla. 1934)
  2. Woods v. A. C. L. R. R. Co.130 So. 601 (Fla. 1930)
  3. Woods ex rel. Powell v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad100 Fla. 909 (1930)
  4. Carney v. Stringfellow74 So. 866 (Fla. 1917)
  5. Anthony Farms Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Railway67 So. 913 (Fla. 1915)
  6. Aberson v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad67 So. 44 (Fla. 1914)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Jones v. Jacksonville Elec. Co., 56 Fla. 452 (1908) 32

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list