From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miami Dairy Farms, Inc., v. Tinsley

Supreme Court of Florida
Nov 27, 1935
164 So. 530 (Fla. 1935)

Opinion

Opinion Filed November 27, 1935.

A writ of error to the Circuit Court for Dade County, Paul D. Barns, Judge.

McKay, Dixon DeJarnette, for Plaintiff in Error;

Edward E. Fleming, for Defendant in Error.


This is the second appearance of this case in this Court. See Miami Dairy Farms, Inc., v. Tinsley, 115 Fla. 650, 155 So. 850. In that case judgment had been rendered for $6,000.00. It was reduced by remittitur of $3,000.00, and we held the judgment after remittitur excessive.

On the second trial of the case in the court below the judgment was for $1,000.00 and the trial court approved the judgment by denying motion for a new trial.

It is contended here that the verdict is excessive.

In F.E.C. Ry. Co. v. Hayes, 67 Fla. 101, 64 So. 504, we ordered a remittitur and allowed judgment to stand for $2,000.00 in favor of the father, as Administrator of a son thirteen years and five months old at his death.

Upon authority of the opinion and judgment in that case, we hold that the judgment for $1,000.00 in favor of the Administrator in the case at bar is not sufficiently shown to be excessive so as to warrant this Court in disturbing the judgment on writ of error.

Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.

WHITFIELD, C.J., and TERRELL, BROWN, BUFORD and DAVIS, J.J., concur.


Summaries of

Miami Dairy Farms, Inc., v. Tinsley

Supreme Court of Florida
Nov 27, 1935
164 So. 530 (Fla. 1935)
Case details for

Miami Dairy Farms, Inc., v. Tinsley

Case Details

Full title:MIAMI DAIRY FARMS, INC., v. CALVIN W. TINSLEY, as Administrator of the…

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Nov 27, 1935

Citations

164 So. 530 (Fla. 1935)
164 So. 530

Citing Cases

Rohlfing v. Moses Akiona, Ltd.

However, by the great weight of authority, that is not a reason for denying such damages altogether. Cox v.…

Hardison v. Threets

After retrial the Supreme Court affirmed a $1,000.00 jury verdict (see 164 So. 530, 531). In Burch v.…