A. R. HARPER PIANO COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld a directed verdict for a railroad company in a second trial, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant was a common carrier rather than a warehouseman, and thus could not recover on a theory of common carrier liability.
The trial court properly directed a verdict for the defendant because the evidence did not establish the railroad's liability as a common carrier, and the plaintiff failed to sustain the allegations of the declaration that the railroad was a common carrier.
“all the points adjudicated by an appellate court upon a writ of error or an appeal become the law of the case, and are no longer open for discussion or consideration”
Establishes the law-of-the-case doctrine preventing reconsideration of previously decided issues
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA. R. Harper Piano Company sued Seaboard Air Line Railway for damages involving a piano. The case was previously decided by the Supreme Court, remande…
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 Warehouseman Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
Shackleford, C. J.
This case comes here for the second time. See Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. A. R. Harper Piano Company, 63 Fla. 264, 58 South. Rep. 491; to which we would refer for a full statement of the facts. Upou the remanding of the case, the second trial was had upon the same issues. -After all the evidence,had been submitted by the respective parties litigant ,the trial judge granted the motion of the defendant directing the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. While three errors are assigned, they are all argued together, it being agreed by counsel that the only point presented for determination is as to the correctness of this - peremptory instruction to the jury.
We have repeatedly held that all the points adjudicated by an appellate court upon a writ of error or an appeal become the law of the case, and are no-longer open for discussion or consideration. See McKinnon v. Johnson, 57 Fla. 120, 48 South. Rep. 910, where prior decisions of this court will be found cited; Purvis v. Frink, 61 Fla. 712, 54 South. Rep. 862; Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Aultman, 61 Fla. 197, 55 South. Rep. 273; Hills-borough Grocery Co. v. Leman, 62 Fla. 208, 56 South. Rep. 684. In the opinion rendered upon the former writ of error, we held as follows:
“The action'and the recovery against the railroad company are based upon its liability as a common carrier, while the testimony shows the relations of carrier and shipper did not exist between the railroad company and the owner of the piano.
The relation alleged is that of a carrier, while the relation shown in evidence is that of a warehouseman, and not that of a common carrier.' The liability of a warehouseman is quite different from that of a common carrier. 6 Cyc. 460; Moore on Carriers, 141, 161, et seq.”
Upon the second trial, the pleadings' had not been amended and the issues' remained the same, as we have already said. Some additional evidence was adduced by the plaintiff, mostly of a cumulative nature, but we áre of the opinion that the evidénce, taken as an entirety, failed to show any liability upon the part of the defendant as a-common carrier. This being true, it necessarily follows that the plaintiff had failed to sustain the allegations of the declaration, for which reason the trial court was warranted in directing the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. Where the evidence is not such as would warrant a verdict for the plaintiff, an affirmative charge for the defendant cannot be held to be erroneous. Mugge v. Jackson, 58 Fla. 323, 43 South. Rep. 91, and Stone v. Citizens’ State Bank, 64 Fla. 456, 59 South. Rep. 945.
Judgment affirmed.
Taylor, Cockrell, Hockbr and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Persis Stevens v. Tampa Elec. Co., 81 Fla. 512 (Fla. 1921)…945; American Process Co. v. Florida White Pressed Brick Co., 56 Fla. 116, 47 South. Rep. 942; Bruner v. Hart, 59 Fla. 171, 51 South. Rep. 593; Mugge v. Jackson, 53 Fla. 323, 43 South. Rep. 91; Harper Piano Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 65 Fla. 490, 62 South. Rep. 482; Johnson v. Rhodes, 62 Fla. 220, 56 South. Rep. 439; Hoopes v. Crane, 56 Fla. 395, 47 South. Rep. 992; Myers v. Hodges, 53 Fla. 197, 44 South. Rep. 357; Painter Fertilizer Co. v. DuPont, 54 Fla. 288, 45 South Rep. 507; McKinnon v. Lewis, 60 Fla. 125…
-
Ross v. Savage, 66 Fla. 106 (Fla. 1913)…ed by an appellate court upon a writ of error or an appeal become the law of the case, and are no longer open for discussion or consideration. See McKinnon v. Johnson, 57 Fla. 120, 48 South. Rep. 910; A. R. Harper Piano Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 65 Fla. 490, 62 South. Rep. 482; First National Bank of St. Petersburg v. Ulmer, decided here at the present term. Wé must be careful, then, to bear in mind just what points were determined upon the former writ of error. A reference to the former transcript dis…
-
Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Geiger, 66 Fla. 582 (Fla. 1914)…icated by an appellate court upon a writ of error or an appeal become the law of the case, and are no longer open for discussion or consideration. McKinnon v. Johnson, 57 Fla. 120, 48 South. Rep. 910; A. R. Harper Piano Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 65 Fla. 490, 62 South. Rep. 482; First Nation Bank of St. Petersburg v. Ulmer, 66 Fla. —, 63 South. Rep. 145; Christophor v. Mungen, decided here at the present term. It is also further true, as we have several times held, that the principle has no applicabilit…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McKinnon v. Johnson, 57 Fla. 120 (Fla. 1909)
- Hillsborough Grocery Co. v. Leman, 62 Fla. 208 (Fla. 1911)
- Pervis v. Talulah H. Frink, 61 Fla. 712 (Fla. 1911)
- Stone v. Citizens State Bank, 64 Fla. 456 (Fla. 1912)
- Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Aultman, 61 Fla. 197 (Fla. 1911)
- Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. A. R. Harper Piano Co., 63 Fla. 264 (Fla. 1912)