ADAM SILCOX, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ELBERT O. CORSA, 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 reversed a judgment for the plaintiff, finding insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict regarding the value of services rendered. The court held that without proof of the reasonable value of the services, the plaintiff could not recover.
No, the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. In the absence of proof of the reasonable value of the services, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.
“The only question presented here is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.”
This quote states the central legal issue on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued the defendant for services rendered, with the declaration containing only common counts. The defendant pleaded 'never was indebted.…
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 Assumpsit cases and more on FLexlaw
[*678] West, J.
In an action of assumpsit plaintiff, who is defendant in error here, sued the defendant, plaintiff in error here, to recover for the value of certain services alleged to have been rendered by plaintiff for defendant. The declaration contains only the common counts. The plea to the declaration making the issue upon which the case was tried is never was indebted as alleged. Upon a trial of this issue verdict was rendered' and judgment entered for the plaintiff. Motion for new trial was denied.
, The only question presented here is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. No attempt was made to prove the allegations of any except the count for work done and materials furnished by the plaintiff for the defendant. With respect to the proof under this count plaintiff, as a witness, testified in his own behalf that there was no contract or agreement between him and defendant as to the amount which he was to receive for the work performed by him. That he did perform some service for defendant is undisputed, but in the absence of proof of the reasonable value of such service plaintiff is not entitled to recover, and there is not in this record such evidence of the reasonable value of the service alleged to have been rendered as may be made a basis for the verdict. Dickerson et al. v. Langford, 69 Fla. 127, 67 South. Rep. 807; C. H. & N. R. Co. v. Burwell & Hillyer, 56 Fla. 217, 48 South. Rep. 213.
The motion for a new trial should have been granted and for the error in overruling it the judgment must be reversed.
Beversed.
Browne, C. J. and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tolin Mfg. Corp. v. ROY Feiner Handbags, Inc., 173 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…e record is the testimony of the president and managing officer of the plaintiff corporation. His testimony consisted entirely of approximations and estimates. As such there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict rendered. Silcox v. Corsa, 80 Fla. 677, 86 So. 611 (1920); Ruth v. Sorensen, Fla. 1958, 104 So. 2d 10. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant for plaintiff a new trial upon the issue of damages only. Reversed and remanded.…
-
Florala Lumber Co. v. Jones, 140 Fla. 794 (Fla. 1939)…was not indebted to the plaintiff. The verdicts as found by the jury are not supported by the testimony. When the testimony fails to support the verdict a new trial should be granted. See Newcomb v. Belton, 80 Fla. 570, 86 So. 501; Silcox v. Corsa, 80 Fla. 677, 86 So. 611. The judgment appealed from is reversed and a 'new trial awarded. Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur. [*797] Terrell, C. J., concurs in opinion .and judgment. Justices Buford and Thomas not participating as authorized by Section…
Authorities Cited
- Harbor v. Blair Burwell, 56 Fla. 217 (Fla. 1908)
- Dickerson v. Lankford, 69 Fla. 127 (Fla. 1915)