LIZZIE A. BUTTERWICK, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
PRISCILLA R. PEFFER, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, CHARLES F. PEFFER, DEFENDANTS 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 reversed a judgment for the plaintiff, finding that the evidence did not support the jury's verdict for the full amount claimed. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the rendering of services for the entire period alleged in the declaration.
No, the evidence did not show the rendering of personal services for the entire five months and eleven days stated in the declaration. Therefore, the verdict was erroneous.
“The evidence does not show the rendering of five months and eleven days of personal service and labor; and even if the credit of $7.95 was exactly overcome by interest on the amount claimed so as to justify a recovery of $402.50 for services rendered, yet as the evidence does not show the rendering of the service for the entire time stated the verdict is erroneous.”
This quote explains the primary reason for reversing the jury's verdict.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued for personal services rendered at a rate of $75 per month, claiming a total of $402.50 after a small credit. The bill of particular…
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 Bill Of Particulars cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
— On a declaration alleging the rendering-of personal service and labor, with a bill of particulars for five months and eleven days personal services, labor, work and attention at $75.00 per month,, totaling $402.50, with a credit of $7.95, leaving balance due $394.55, there were verdict and judgment for $402.50, and defendant took writ of error. The evidence does not show the rendering of five months and eleven days of personal service and labor; and even if the credit of $7.95 was exactly overcome by interest on the amount claimed so as to justify a recovery of $402.50 for services rendered, yet as the evidence does not show the rendering of the service for the entire time stated the verdict is erroneous. The defendants’ testimony is not controverted, and is a defense to the action.
Judgment reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor and Ellis, J. J., concur. West, J., dissents.