Case Name: The Peace River Phosphate Mining Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. J. J. Singleton, Defendant in Error
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1906-01
Citations: 51 Fla. 288
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Peace River Phosphate Mining Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. J. J. Singleton, Defendant in Error.
Judges: Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill,' JJ., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 288–289

Head Matter:
The Peace River Phosphate Mining Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. J. J. Singleton, Defendant in Error.
A verdict and judgment for the defendant upon the trial of a traverse of the affidavit in attachment, will not be disturbed by the .appellate court on account of alleged errors committed by the trial judge in his charges, and in admission and rejection of testimony, where upon the admitted facts, it appears that the jury could not have rendered a different verdict.
This case was decided by Division B.
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for DeSoto County.
The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Treadwell <& Treackoell, for Plaintiff in Error.
Forrester & Burton, for Defendant in Error.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
In this case plaintiff in error sued out an attachment in the Circuit Court of DeSoto county against the defendant in error, wherein the affiant in his-, affidavit stated he had reason to believe that the said defendant would fraudulently part with his property before judgment could be obtained against him. There-was a traverse by the defendant and a trial of the same before a jury, and a verdict and judgment for the defendant. There are quite a number of assignments of error based on the admission and rejection of testimonv and the charge of the court. We have carefully examined the record, and irrespective of the errors assigned, we do not see how the jury, acting upon the undisputed facts, clould have arrived at a different verdict from the one rendered. Our conclusion is that there is no reversible error in the record, and it is therefore considered and ordered that the judgment of the Circuit Court be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill,' JJ., concur.
Shackleford, C. J., and Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur in the opinion.