NETTIE GOODBREAD, FOR THE USE OF S. C. COLE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
H. R. THOMAS, 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 ejectment action, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a jury verdict and judgment for the defendant landowner, finding that the judgment awarding him title was inconsistent with the evidence and that the trial court improperly conditioned denial of a new trial motion on the defendant's payment of a debt.
The judgment is reversed because: (1) the judgment that title was in the defendant is not in accord with the evidence and is not a proper adjudication; (2) the conditions imposed by the order denying the new trial motion were unauthorized; and (3) the verdict is manifestly contrary to the evidence.
“As the judgment "that the title to the property sued for * is in the said defendant," is not in accord with the evidence and is not a proper adjudication in this case, and as the conditions imposed by the order denying a new trial were unauthorized, and as the verdict is manifestly contrary to the evidence, the judgment is reversed.”
This statement sets forth the three independent grounds for reversal: the judgment's inconsistency with evidence, the unauthorized conditions on denying the new trial, and the verdict's manifest contradiction to the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Nettie Goodbread, for the use of S. C. Cole, brought an ejectment action against H. R. Thomas over land described as the E¼ of NE¼ Section 10 and…
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 Mesne Profits cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
An action of ejectment was brought by Mrs. Nettie Goodbread for the use of S. C. Cole, against H. R. Thomas, who pleaded not guilty. The jury found for the defendant and the following judgment was rendered:
“This cause having been tried at the last term of this court, which "trial resulted in a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff made a motion for a new trial, which motion was by the court continued until this present term of this court, and the same being further argued, the court overruled said motion, whereupon, it is considered, ordered and adjudged by the court, that the plaintiff take nothing, by his said suit, and that the title to the property sued, for, the Ej4, NE% Section io, and West ^ of NWJ4, Section Eleven, all in Township 2, S. Range 17 East is in the said defendant, and that he is entitled to the possession thereof” &c.
On a motion for new trial by the plaintiff the following order was made:
“November 2nd. Motion for a new trial made and argued, and upon consideration it is* ordered that the motion be granted on the first day of the next term of court, unless in the mean time, the defendant shall pay plaintiff the amount due on the mortgage, with principal, interest and attorney’s fees, and the sum of one hundred dollars, with interest mentioned in equitable plea tendered, and if these payments be made the motion will be overruled.
“On 4/27/16, motion denied.”
The plaintiff took writ of erro.r. At the trial the plaintiff showed a legal title to the land in controversy and the value of mesne profits.
The defendant offered testimony as to an agreement with the usee'thfit the lands, which were sold under an execution obtained by A. S. Goodbread against the defendant, would be bought in for the defendant who had previously mortgaged the lands to the usee. There was other testimony as to the desire of the defendant to buy the land after it was sold under the Goodbread execution to Mrs. Nettie Goodbread.
As the judgment “that the title to the property sued for * is in the said defendant,” is not in accord with the evidence and is not a proper adjudication in this case, and as the conditions imposed by the order denying a new trial were unauthorized, and as the verdict is manifestly contrary to the evidence, the judgment is reversed..
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nettie Goodbread v. Thomas, 82 Fla. 411 (Fla. 1921)…[*412] Whitfield, J. For previous opinions herein see Goodbread v. Thomas, 73 Fla. 663, 74 South. Rep. 798, and Thomas v. Goodbread, 78 Fla. 278, 82 Suth Rep. 835. At the last trial in ejectment the plaintiff showed a paper title and the defendant sought to show an equitable estoppel under the principles stated in the former opinion…