Case Name: Richard PONTE, Appellant, v. Floyd I. LATTIN, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1961-12-04
Citations: 135 So. 2d 260
Docket Number: No. 61-220
Parties: Richard PONTE, Appellant, v. Floyd I. LATTIN, Appellee.
Judges: Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 135
Pages: 260–260

Head Matter:
Richard PONTE, Appellant, v. Floyd I. LATTIN, Appellee.
No. 61-220.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
Dec. 4, 1961.
Fowler, White, Gillen, Humkey & Trenam and Henry Burnett, Miami, for appellant.
Matthews, Quinton & Spellman, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is under § 59.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., from an order granting a new trial after a verdict in an automobile accident case. Appellant assigns as error the failure of the trial judge to indicate in the order granting new trial the ground on which the motion for it was granted, as required by § 59.07(4), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and rule 2.6(d), F.R.C.P., 31 F.S.A. Because the order granting new trial failed to state the ground or grounds on which it was granted, it is hereby reversed (Gaskill v. Montague, Fla.App.1961, 128 So.2d 420; Fulton v. Poston Bridge & Iron, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 240; Means v. Douglas, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 88; Ebersole v. Tepperman, Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 564); and the cause is remanded with directions as provided for in said § 59.04, id., "that final judgment be entered in the trial court for the party obtaining the verdict, unless motion in arrest of judgment or for judgment non obstante veredicto be made and prevail."
Reversed and remanded.