Jacksonville Terminal Co. v. Smith

Citations

• 67 Fla. 10
• 64 So. 354

Syllabus

<p>1. A case should not be taken from the jury unless the conclusion follows from the evidence as matter of law that no recovery can be lawfully hhd upon any view taken of facts that the evidence tends to establish.</p> <p>2. Where it is alleged that a defendant railroad company “failed and neglected to equip one of its cars with an automatic coupler which would couple automatically by impact, without the necessity of men going in between the cars to be coupled,” and that plaintiff was injured “while holding or attempting to hold the coupling appliances of said car in position with his hands to effect said coupling,” and the evidence shows the coupling could not be made automatically by impact, because the buff on the car being low interfered with the coupling, there is no fatal variance between the allegations and the proofs.</p> <p>3. A power of attorney not coupled with an interest in the subject matter though under seal, may be revoked by parol; and such revocation is binding on the agent and on third persons who have, notice of it, or have such knowledge as would reasonably put them upon enquiry that would disclose revocation.</p> <p>4. When a power of attorney is given, and the instrument vests in the agent no interest in the subject on which the power is to operate, but an interest of the agent therein is to accrue by the exercise of the power, the interest and the power are not united so as to make the power coupled with the interest.</p> <p>5. Authority to compromise a 'claim does not of itself convey an interest in the claim.</p> <p>6. Where notice of a revocation of a power of attorney may be inferred, evidence of an effective parol revocation of the power is admissible.</p>