BROCKINGTON v. CENTRAL LIFE INS. CO., 131 Fla. 250 (1937)

173 So. 908

CLARENCE BROCKINGTON v. CENTRAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.

Supreme Court of Florida.Opinion Filed May 3, 1937.
Rehearing Denied June 2, 1937.

A writ of error to the Circuit Court for Martin County, Elwyn Thomas, Judge.

Carroll Dunscombe, for Plaintiff in Error;

Hampton, Bull and Crom and T.B. Ellis, Jr., for Defendant in Error.

PER CURIAM.

In this case writ of error brings for review judgment in favor of the defendant in the court below in a suit wherein the declaration was in two counts. The first count was for conversion of an insurance policy of the alleged value of $250.00. The second count was for conversion and for punitive damages incident to such conversion.

Demurrer and motion to strike were interposed to both counts of the declaration and both were overruled.

Thereafter a number of pleas were filed to each count of the declaration. All of the pleas went down on demurrer except the first, eleventh and fourteenth.

The first plea was: “For a first plea to said second amended declaration, this defendant denies that the plaintiff is the owner of the policy described in the declaration.”

The eleventh plea was: “And for an eleventh plea to said declaration this defendant says it is not guilty.”

Page 251

The fourteenth plea was: “For an additional plea to the first count of said second amended declaration this defendant says it has paid and discharged plaintiff’s claim by payment.”

On these pleas the plaintiff joined issue. The verdict of the jury was a general verdict in favor of defendant and against the plaintiff and was rendered upon direction of the court.

There is absolutely no evidence in the record that the defendant wrongfully retained possession of the insurance policy referred to in the declaration after the same was delivered to the defendant by the plaintiff. Therefore, there was no error in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant.

The judgment should be, and is, affirmed.

ELLIS, C.J., and TERRELL and BUFORD, J.J., concur.

WHITFIELD, P.J., and BROWN and DAVIS, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 173 So. 908

Recent Posts

Florida Attorney General Opinion No. AGO 2025-03 (Oct. 20, 2025)

State Attorney Staff Firearm Possession in Courtrooms Number: AGO 2025-03 Issued: October 20, 2025 Ed…

1 month ago

Florida Attorney General Opinion No. AGO 2025-02 (Oct. 20, 2025)

Certain Professional Firearm Regulations after McDaniels Number: AGO 2025-02 Issued: October 20, 2025 The Honorable…

1 month ago

Florida Attorney General Opinion No. AGO2025-01 (June 11, 2025)

Moving the dates of Municipal Elections absent voter approval Number: AGO2025-01 Issued: June 11, 2025…

1 month ago

Florida Attorney General Opinion No. AGO2023-04 (10/30/2023)

Sunshine Law – Search and Selection Committees Number: AGO2023-04 Issued October 30, 2023 Rachel Kamoutsas…

1 year ago

Florida Attorney General Opinion No. AGO2023-03 (10/02/2023)

Firearms - Definitions Number: AGO2023-03 Issued October 02, 2023 Representative Shane Abbott Florida House of…

1 year ago

Florida Attorney General Opinion No. AGO 2023-02 (07/21/2023)

Clerk’s sale of court-ordered debts to debt purchasers Number: AGO 2023-02 Issued July 21, 2023…

1 year ago