From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clark v. Gray

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Aug 23, 1962
143 So. 2d 504 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962)

Opinion

No. 61-530.

July 17, 1962. Rehearing Denied August 23, 1962.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County; Pat Cannon, Judge.

Reece Murray, Miami, for appellant.

Dixon, DeJarnette, Bradford, Williams, McKay Kimbrell and Milton R. Adkins, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C.J., and BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.


Affirmed. See: Crosby v. Stubblebine, Fla.App. 1962, 142 So.2d 358.

PEARSON, TILLMAN, C.J., dissents.


It is my view that this judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial because of an erroneous instruction. The instruction was, I think, contrary to the law of this State as set forth in Carraway v. Revell, Fla. 1959, 116 So.2d 16, 22.

The faulty instruction was objected to at charge conference, and the record reveals that it was upon a vital issue. It was therefore prejudicial. Once it appears from the record that the issue is vital, it ought not to be incumbent on a party to include unnecessary matter in the record. I would think it most unfortunate if the opinion cited by the majority were interpreted to require unnecessary matter in a record.


Summaries of

Clark v. Gray

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Aug 23, 1962
143 So. 2d 504 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962)
Case details for

Clark v. Gray

Case Details

Full title:BERTHA MAE CLARK, AS WIDOW OF EUGENE CLARK, DECEASED, APPELLANT, v. JAMES…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Aug 23, 1962

Citations

143 So. 2d 504 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962)

Citing Cases

Clark v. Gray

Certiorari denied without opinion. 143 So.2d 504.…

Castaldo v. Singapore, J.V. Inc.

Therefore, we affirm the action of the trial judge, because the record is insufficient to determine whether…