Skip to main content
· 6/15/1878

Simpson & Co. v. Daniels

Citations

  • 16 Fla. 677

Syllabus

<p>1. A verdict that “ We, the jury, find for the plaintiff, and assess his damages at $1,662.40, with legal interest from the 1st September, 1876,” expresses sufficiently the intention of the jury; the time for which such interest is to be computed and the rate are fixed. The clerk can make the necessary calculation and embody the amount in the judgment.</p> <p>2. The court will not reverse a judgment founded on the verdict of a jury for the sole reason that immaterial evidence was admitted by the court, when it is apparent that such evidence could not have influenced the jury in forming their verdict.</p> <p>3. A cause will not be remanded simply for the reason that there is a small excess in the amount of damages awarded by the verdict. The jurors are the proper judges from the evidence as to the amount to be awarded, and where the evidence will uphold the verdict, this court will not interfere.</p> <p>4. A party applying for a new trial upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence “ must make his vigilance apparent,” and the evidence so sought to be introduced must not be cumulative.</p> <p>5. D. brought his action against S. to recover damage sustained by reason ■ of S’s. negligence to one hundred and one pieces of hewn timber. On > the trial it appeared that one D. S. .was jointly interested with the plaintiff in twenty-one pieces, and that P. was also jointly interested with plaintiff in thirty-two pieces. The jury found for the plaintiff-' and assessed his damages as sustained on the whole one hundred and one pieces. The defendant S. moved for a new trial, and the plaintiff D. having, before judgment, remitted the average damages on the fifty-three pieces in which D. S. and P. were interested, the motion was denied, and judgment ordered for an amount equal to the average of' the damage sustained by the plaintiff D. on the timber owned by him ■ alone: Held, to be no error, the evidence showing the timber to be of-like quality and value, and the damage having

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • finding that “merely not seeking review by an administrative agency ... is not a judgment on the merits and is not entitled to preclusive effect”
  • characterizing the AHC’s function in this context as “[d]etermining the amount a taxpayer owes”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Valkenbuegh

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.