MAYO AND STOKES, APPELLANTS,
v.
KEYSER'S EXECUTRIX, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this assumpsit action on a promissory note, the Florida Supreme Court held that defendants who demur to pleadings but then plead over and proceed to trial waive their right to challenge the demurrer rulings on appeal. The court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff.
Defendants waived all exceptions to the demurrer rulings by pleading over and going to trial on the merits. Once a party pleads over after an adverse demurrer ruling and makes an issue that is tried, that party loses the right to assign those demurrer rulings as error on appeal.
“if a party, after judgment on demurrer against him, amends his pleadings and makes an issue which is tried, he waives all exceptions which he might have taken to the judgment on demurrer, and will not be permitted to assign them for error in this court”
Establishes the core rule that pleading over after an adverse demurrer waives the right to challenge that demurrer on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMayo and Stokes were sued by H. S. Keyser, executrix of William J. Keyser's estate, on a promissory note. The amended declaration contained four count…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an action of assumpsit upon a promissory note, brought by H. S. ICeyser, executrix of the last will and testament of the Wm. J. Keyser, deceased, against the defendants Mayo and Stokes. The amended declaration consisted ofv four counts. The defendants, on the second day of February, 1880, demurred to the first, second and third counts, and plead to the fourth. On the hearing the court overruled the demurrers. The defendants further filed pleas on the 27th January, 29th March and first of April, 1880. The plaintiff then demurred to the several pleas so filed by the defendants, and on the second day of April, the court upon a hearing made an order sustaining the demurrer as to all of said pleas, -excepting as to the plea of *193L. G. Mayo, filed second February, 1880, -as to which plea the demurrer is overruled. °
On the 7th day of April, 1880, the defendants plead over to the amended declaration, replications were filed and the cause was tried by a jury who found a verdict for the plaintiff, upon which judgment was duly entered. There is no bill of exceptions and the only errors assigned are as follows:
1. The court erred in overruling the demurrer to the amended declaration.
2. The court erred in sustaining the demurrer to pleas filed by the defendants on the 27th January, 29th of March, and 1st of April, 1880.
This court, in a series of decisions, have determined that if a party, after judgment on demurrer against him, amends his pleadings and makes an issue which is tried, he waives all exceptions which he might have taken to the judgment on demurrer, and will not be permitted to assign them for error in this court. If the party desires to have the ruling by the court upon the demurrer reversed, lie must not plead over, but permit the judgment on the demurrer to stand.
Had the defendants permitted sthe judgment on demurrer to their pleas to have stood and appealed from that, it would have reached back to the declaration, but by waiv--ing their demurrer in pleading over and going to trial upon the issues made, they lost their right to except to the judgment of the court upon the demurrers to their pleas. Bailey vs. Clark, 6 Fla., 516; Ellison vs. Allison, 8 Fla., 206; Hooker vs. Johnson, 8 Fla., 453; Robinson vs. L'Engle, 13 Fla., 483; Garlington vs. Priest, 13 Fla., 559; Johnson vs. P. & P. R. R. Co., 16 Fla., 623.
The judgment must be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. Townsend's Administratrix, 21 Fla. 431 (Fla. 1885)
Authorities Cited
- Ellison v. Allen, 8 Fla. 206 (Fla. 1858)
- Wm. H. Garlington v. Priest, 13 Fla. 559 (Fla. 1869)
- Bailey v. Clark, 6 Fla. 516 (Fla. 1855)
- Johnson v. The Pensacola & Perdido R.R. Co., 16 Fla. 623 (Fla. 1878)
- Hooker v. Johnson, 8 Fla. 453 (Fla. 1859)