THE STEARNS & CULVER LUMBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
Z. S. ADAMS, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this 1908 Florida trespass case, the Stearns & Culver Lumber Company was sued for damages caused by cutting logs and damaging soil on the defendant's 160-acre property. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff (Adams), and the lumber company appealed, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed because the appellate assignments of error were procedurally deficient.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. The appellate assignments of error were procedurally deficient: the first assignment was too general to be considered, and the fifth, sixth, and seventh assignments (relating to jury charges) could not be considered because no exceptions were properly noted in the record and their location in the transcript was not identified.
“The first assignment of error is, that "the court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff in said cause." This assignment is too general to be considered as it is broad enough to cover the whole record and every feature of the trial.”
Explains why the primary assignment of error was rejected as insufficiently specific.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 3, 1906, Z. S. Adams sued the Stearns & Culver Lumber Company in the circuit court of Walton County for trespass. The complaint alleged th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Assignments Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Hooker, J.
—On December 3d, 1906, the defendant in error sued the plaintiff in error in the circuit court of Walton county in an action of trespass to recover damages for cutting and removing logs from 160 acres of the plaintiff’s land, and for injuring the soil of the same by cutting up and packing the same by the passing of carts and teams and other damages thereto, set forth in the declaration. Pleas of not guilty, that title was in the defendant, and that the defendant did what was complained of by plaintiff’s leave were filed, issue joined thereon, and the case-tried at the April term, 1907. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff which the plaintiff in error seeks to reverse here. No motion was made for a new trial, and no exception appears to have been taken to any one of the charges of the court. The first assignment of error is, that “the court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff in said cause.” This assignment is too general to be considered as it is broad enough to cover the whole record and every feature of the trial.
The fifth, sixth and' seventh assignments, the only ones argued, relate to charges given by the court to the jury, to which we have not found in the record that any exceptions were taken; and there is no reference either in the index .or the assignments, or in the brief of plaintiff in error to the pages of the transcript where such exceptions may be found. These assignments therefore cannot be considered.
No error being shown, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed at the cost of the plaintiff in error. Taylor and Parkhill, JJ., concur;
Shackleford, C. J., Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Putnal v. State, 56 Fla. 86 (Fla. 1908)…South. Rep. 194; Wilson v. Johnson, 51 Fla. 370, 41 South. Rep. 395; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Scarborough, 32 Fla. 425, 42 South. Rep. 706; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Crosby, 53 Fla. 400, 43 South. Rep. 318; Stearns & Culver Lumber Co. v. Adams, 55 Fla. 401, 46 South. Rep. 156. Suffice it to say that no error has been made to appear to us. The second witness' introduced on behalf of the State was W. B. Davis, who testified as follows: “My name is W. B. Davis. I know the defendant in this case, J. A. P…
-
Hyer v. Griffin, 55 Fla. 560 (Fla. 1908)…sole assignment presented to us for consideration is the denial of the motion for a new trial. The defendants contend that this assignment is too general to merit consideration and, in support thereof, rely upon Stearns & Culver Lumber Co. v. Adams, 55 Fla. 401, 45 South. Rep. 847. The cited case does not bear out this contention. What we held there was that “an assignment of error that 'the court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff in said cause’ is too general to be considered by this court.” I…
-
Ward v. State, 124 Fla. 113 (Fla. 1936)…in the court below in one of the modes provided by law. Spanish v. State, 72 Fla. 420, 73 Sou. 230; Williams v. State, 32 Fla. 251, 13 Sou. 429; Bynum v. State, 46 Fla. 142, 35 Sou. 65; Glover v. State, 22 Fla. 493; Stearn , etc., Lbr. Co. v. Adams, 55 Fla. 401, 45 Sou. 847; Steele v. State, 85 Fla. 57, 95 Sou. 299; McSwain v. Howell, 29 Fla. 248; 10 Sou. 588; Frances v. State, 6 Fla. 306. Therefore, the judgment must be affirmed. Affirmed. Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Whitfeld,…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence