Case Name: Miami Transit Company, a corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. Fidella Mowrey, a married woman, by her husband and next friend, W. W. Mowrey, and W. W. Mowrey, in his own right, Defendants in Error
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1931-12-11
Citations: 103 Fla. 840
Docket Number: 
Parties: Miami Transit Company, a corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. Fidella Mowrey, a married woman, by her husband and next friend, W. W. Mowrey, and W. W. Mowrey, in his own right, Defendants in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 103
Pages: 840–841

Head Matter:
Miami Transit Company, a corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. Fidella Mowrey, a married woman, by her husband and next friend, W. W. Mowrey, and W. W. Mowrey, in his own right, Defendants in Error.
138 So. 481.
Division A.
Opinion filed December 11, 1931.
Petition for rehearing denied January 13, 1932.
Worley & Worley, attorneys for the Plaintiff in Error;
Sonnes M. Carson and George M. Thompson, attorneys for Defendants in Error.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This case is before us on writ of error from an order of the court below granting defendant in error a new trial.
This court has several times held that:
"There are so many matters occurring in the course and progress of a judicial trial that, in the opinion of the judge who tried the case, may affect' the merits and justice of the cause to the substantial injury of one of the parties, that of necessity a large 'discretion should be accorded to the trial court' in granting a new trial to the end that the administration of justice may be facilitated; and the appellate court will not reverse an •order granting a new trial, unless it clearly appears that a judicial discretion has been abused in its exercise, resulting in injustice, or that the law has been violated."
See Ruff v. G. S. & F. Ry. Co., 67 Fla. 224, 64 So. 782; Huston v. Green, 91 Fla. 434, 108 So. 846 and cases cited.
It thus appears that it requires a very strong showing to authorize the appellate court to reverse an order of a "trial court granting a new trial. Applying the above quoted rule, we cannot say that it clearly appears that the trial •court was guilty of- reversible error in granting a new trial in this ease.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur. Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.