L. P. ALLEN
v.
BREVARD COUNTY LOAN & MORTGAGE CO., CHARLES D. SMITH, GARNISHEE
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 directed verdict for a garnishee, finding that conflicting evidence regarding the garnishee's indebtedness to the defendant required submission to a jury.
Yes, the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the garnishee. Conflicting evidence on the issue of indebtedness required the case to be submitted to a jury.
“The first is, “The court erred in directing a verdict for the garnishee.””
Identifies the primary assignment of error 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 intelligenceA plaintiff obtained a judgment against a defendant and subsequently initiated garnishment proceedings against a third party (the garnishee). The tria…
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 Conflicting Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ ofi error is to revise a judgment in favor of the garnishee.
There are two assignments of error. The first is, “The court erred in directing a verdict for the garnishee.” The second is, “The court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.”
Motion for new trial contains one ground, that the court erred in directing a verdict for the garnishee. So the only question before the Court for determination is whether or not there was sufficient evidence on the issues to require the case to be submitted to a jury.
We think that the record presents a question of fact as to whether or not the garnishee was indebted to the defendant against which judgment was recovered at the time the writ *641of garnishment was served or at any time thereafter before answer, and as to this question of fact there.was conflicting evidence which required its submission to the jury. Section 3436 R. G. L., 5289 C. G. L.
Therefore, the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
It is so ordered.
Reversed and remanded.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allen v. Brevard Cnty. Loan & Mortg. Co. Charles D. Smith, 118 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1935)
-
Stansell v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. (11th Cir. 2022)