Legal Opinion

Greenblatt v. J. R. Bissell Dry Goods Co.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided January 25, 1923PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWhitfield, J.

In an action of assumpsit for goods sold and delivered there was judgment for the plaintiff on a directed verdict.

On writ of error it is contended that as the evidence was conflicting oh a material issue as to ’whether' thé' goods were purchaséd in March, 1920, when the defendant was a member of a certain partnership, or in July, 1920, after the defendant had retired from the partnership, the matter should have been submitted to the jury and that it was error to. direct a.verdict for the.plaintiff.. ... .

A motion for new trial ¿nd á ruling thereon with ,an exception duly taken are…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Stevens v. Tampa Electric Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1921
  2. Bland v. Fidelity Trust Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1916
  3. Campbell v. McLaurin Investment Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1917
  4. Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. PetersSupreme Court of Florida · 1919
  5. Berryhill-Cromartie Co. v. Manitowoc Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1913

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of Florida · 1928
  2. Holstun & Son v. EmbrySupreme Court of Florida · 1936
  3. New England Mutual Life Insurance v. HuckinsSupreme Court of Florida · 1937
  4. Gilbert v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1941
  5. Osceola Fertilizer Co. v. BevilleSupreme Court of Florida · 1923

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API