C. B. Rogers Co. v. Meinhardt Bros. & Co.

Citations

• 37 Fla. 480

Syllabus

<p>1. The second paragraph of section 1088, Revised Statutes, has not' curtailed the province of the jury in passing upon the facts of a case, nor has it enlarged the powers of the court as to its determination of the facts.</p> <p>%. The rule established by the statute is that if no evidence is introduced upon which a jury may lawfully find a verdict for one party, a direction may be given to find for the opposite party, but the judge should never' 'direct a verdict for one party, unless the evidence is such that no view which the jury may lawfully take of it favorable to the other party can be sustained.</p> <p>3. In all cases where there is room for difference of opinion between reasonable men as to the existence of facts from which an ultimate fact is sought to be established, or when there is room for such difference as to the inferences which might be drawn from conceded facts, the court should submit the case to the jury for their finding, as it is their conclusion, in such cases, that should prevail, and not the views of the judge.</p> <p>4 The duty devolving upon the court in reference tc directing a verdict on the evidence may become, in many cases, one of delicacy, and should be cautiously exercised.</p> <p>5. A wide latitude is permitted in the proof of fraud, and testimony tending to show that a debtor, in failing circumstances, immediately before a sale of his entire property, stated to other parties than the purchaser that he wanted money, and they could have his property at their own price, is admissable as bearing upon a fraudulent purpose in the disposition of the property.</p>