Skip to main content
· 6/15/1905

Upchurch v. Mizell

Citations

  • 50 Fla. 456

Syllabus

<p>.1 Where assignments of error are based on the introduction of evidence which was merely cumulative, and there was other competent evidence strongly tending to prove the fact, which was sought to be established, and there was no evidence to the contrary, and the verdict could not reasonably have been otherwise than it was, the assigned errors will be regarded as harmless.</p> <p>2. Where a witness is asked as to his knowledge of the financial condition and integrity of a person during the year 1898, and the evidence was pertinent and proper as to such condition and integrity during a part of the year 1898, and there was no specific objection in the court below to such question, as being too broad, this court will not sustain the objection made here for the first time.</p> <p>3. A remark of the trial judge upon an answer of a witness which was objected to, as follows. “I think he answered it pretty well gentlemen,” which remark was not objected to at the time, and no exception taken thereto, will not be considered here.</p> <p>4. Where the record does not show any ruling of the trial court or any objection or exception to a ruling, this court cannot regard an assignment based on the alleged action of the court.</p> <p>5. Where an objection by the plaintiff was sustained to a certain question put toi the defendant by his attorney, but it appears from the record that he was subsequently permitted to substantially answer the question, the action of the trial court in sustaining the objection will not be regarded as reversible error.</p> <p>6. The defendant Upchurch was asked by his attorney whether it would have been a reflection upon Dyal & Upchurch if he (one of the plaintiffs) had declined to sell the mules on a credit. This question was objected to by the plaintiffs, and the objection sustained by the court, which action is assigned as error. We discover ¡no error in this ruling.</p> <p>7. The construction of a written instrument is a question *c-r the court and

Judges: Cockrell, Hocker, Parkhill, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield

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.