Mizell Live Stock Co. v. Pollard
Mizell Live Stock Company, a Corporation, in Error v. Garrison A. Pollard, in Error
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
This is a writ of error directed to the granting of a new trial.
The motion for a new trial contained several grounds which questioned the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and also claimed newly discovered evidence. The trial Judge simply granted the motion without specifying the ground upon which his order was based. We have examined the transcript of the record and are of the opinion that the order must be affirmed upon the authority of Ruff v. Georgia Southern & Florida Ry. Co., 67 Fla. 224 , 64 South. Rep. 782 , and Chancey v. Williams, 56 Fla. 215 , 47 South. Rep. 811 .
Order affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.