Phoenix Insurance v. Bryan

Citations

• 58 Fla. 341

Syllabus

<p>1. In passing upon an assignment based upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial, an appellate court will consider only such grounds thereof as are argued, treating the other grounds as abandoned.</p> <p>2. It is not sufficient merely to repeat the error assigned and state that in the opinion of counsel the action or ruling of the court complained of constitutes error, or that an inspection of the record upon the point in question will show that error was committed. Unless the error complained of is so glaring or patent that no argument is needed to demonstrate it, counsel must call the attention of the court to the specific points upon which he relies to show error, otherwise the court will feel warranted in treating such assignment as abandoned.</p> <p>3. In an action upon a fire insurance policy wherein two principal points upon which the defendant company seeks to avoid its liability and justify its refusal to pay the amount of insurance are (1) that gasoline was kept and used on the premises, contrary to one of the provisions of the policy, and (2) that the plaintiffs permitted the building to be used for the purpose of carrying on the business of a pressing club and pool room, ■ which business was of “greater hazard than the business of a cold drink and fruit store, the risk assumed by said policy, and requiring the payment of a larger premium.” and the jury found adversely to such contentions, and the trial judge concurred in such finding by refusing to disturb the verdict, and the appellate court from an examination of all the evidence adduced at such trial is of the opinion that as reasonable men the jury might well have found such verdict from the evidence, such court will likewise refuse to disturb such verdict or to* reverse the judgment.</p>