Opinion

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Co.

  • 89 Fla. 224
  • 104 So. 593
Court
Supreme Court of Florida
Filed
Mar 2, 1925
Status
Published
Author
Browne
On the bench
Whitfield, West, Teeeell, Taylor, Ellis, Browne
Cited by
9 cases

"The usage or custom that may have the force and effect of . . . an implied contract . . . must be clearly and definitely proven; and, where the evidence is uncertain and also contradictory, the usage or custom is not established."

How later courts described this case

  • "The usage or custom that may have the force and effect of . . . an implied contract . . . must be clearly and definitely proven; and, where the evidence is uncertain and also contradictory, the usage or custom is not established."

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Browne, J.,

dissenting.

One of the issues submitted to the jury by the charge of the court, was whether or not the evidence showed and established a usage or custom in the manner in which the shipments of fertilizer by the plaintiff were delivered to and accepted by the defendant.

The jury by its verdict found that there was a definite and certain usage or custom, and our opinion of the mere •uncertainty of the testimony to establish this custom, does

*237

not- warrant, under the repeated decisions of this court, in criminal cases, the substitution of our view as to the weight of the testimony, for that of the jury.

All the questions of law contended for by the plaintiff in error are decided adversely to him by this decision, and the judgment is reversed solely on the question whether or not the evidence proved a usage or established custom.

This question was not raised by the plaintiff in error, either in the assignments of error or in his brief; no doubt, because the rule seemed too well settled, that the finding of a jury on a question of fact will not be disturbed if there is any substantial evidence to support it.

If that rule means anything it should be applied alike in civil and criminal cases, but if it is to be deviated from occasionally in civil cases, it might as well be abandoned.

I sometimes doubt the soundness of the rule, in view of the provisions of Section 2918, Revised General Statutes, 1920, which provides:

“It shall be the duty of the court on an appeal or writ of error to examine the record, to reverse or affirm the judgment, sentence or decree of the court below, or to give such judgment, sentence or decree as the court below ought to have given, or as to it may appear according to

law."

If, however, this court is so committed to the rule, that it will not interfere with the verdict of a jury on a question of fact where there is substantial evidence to sustain it, it seems to me that the judgment in this ease should be affirmed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.