JULIUS C. ANDERSON, SHERIFF, &C., PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
CARLIN & FULTON, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a replevin judgment, holding that the ad damnum clause in a declaration for specific goods pertains to detention damages, not the value of the goods themselves. This clarified a potential issue with the judgment exceeding the stated damages.
The ad damnum of a declaration in a replevin action for specific goods relates to the damages for their detention, not the value of the goods. Therefore, the judgment for the value of the goods, even if exceeding the ad damnum, was not erroneous on that basis.
“It seemed to us at the time of the argument that an order should be made, as in. Spratt vs. McLean, 20 Fla., 515, 524, granting a new trial unless the defendants in error should, within a time to be specified, enter, a remittitur of such excess in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Orange county, but upon investigation and further consideration we find that under section 20 of the practice act of February 8, 1861, section 28, p. 817, of McClellan's Digest, the ad damnum of a declaration for the recovery of specific goods, does not relate to the value of the goods, but to the damages for their detention.”
Explains the court's initial thought process and the legal basis for its final decision regarding the ad damnum.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarlin & Fulton brought a replevin action against Sheriff Anderson. The case was tried by the court without a jury. The plaintiffs elected to recover …
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.
Mr. Justice Raney
delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an action of replevin tried by the court without a jury, by consent of parties.
There is no bill of exceptions, and, consequently, questions upon the evidence cannot be considered.
Damages are laid in the declaration at $700. The plaintiffs, Carlin & Fulton, having elected, as permitted by our replevin statute, to take a recovery for the value of the goods, the court found the same to be $742.68, and judgment was rendered for this amount and costs. It is urged that the judgment is, on account of the excess over the ad damnum of the declaration, erroneous. It seemed to us at the time of the argument that an order should be made, as in. Spratt vs. McLean, 20 Fla., 515, 524, granting a new trial unless the defendants in error should, within a time to be specified, enter, a remittitur of such excess in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Orange county, but upon investigation and further consideration we find that under section 20 of the practice act of February 8, 1861, section 28, p. 817, of McClellan’s Digest, the ad damnum of a declaration for the recovery of specific goods, does not relate to the value of the goods, but to the damages for their detention. The schedule which the declaration refers to as attached to it, and as describing the goods taken, puts their value at the amount fixed by the judgment.
The judgment must be affirmed, and it will be so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Younglove v. Knox, 44 Fla. 743 (Fla. 1902)…am.ages alleged in the ad damnum clause of the declaration. This ground is without merit. The ad damnum in an action for the recovery of specific goods ueeu not cover their value, but only the damages claimed for their detention. Anderson v. Carlin, 24 Fla. 199, 3 South. Rep. 577. The declaration, before its amendment, claimed $2,000 dam-ages, and the damages awarded amounted to §1,085. The remaining grounds of the motion, except the sixteenth which is not argued, would require for their con- . sideration…
-
Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Brown, 77 Fla. 155 (Fla. 1919)…ecover greater damages than are claimed in his declaration. 2 Greenleaf on Evidence, Sec. 260; 1 Chitty on Pleading, p. 442; Weber v. Morris & Essex R. R. Co., 35 N. J. L. 409; Karnuff v. Kelch, 69 N. J. L. 499, 55 Atl. Rep. 163; Anderson v. Carlin, 24 Fla. 199, 3 South. Rep. 577; Camp v. First Nat. Bank of Ocala, 44 Fla. 497, 33 South. Rep. 241. In the latter case this court said: “Where interest at the legal rate is allowed as an incident to the recovery it is not necessary that there should be an expres…
Authorities Cited
- McLean v. Spratt, 20 Fla. 515 (Fla. 1884)