CELESTE F. CRAWFORD, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE W. TIEDEMAN & BRO., APPELLEES
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 reversed a judgment against a married woman, finding the declaration insufficient to support a legal judgment. The court emphasized the need for specific factual allegations to proceed against a married woman under state statutes.
No, the declaration is insufficient because it fails to allege essential facts required for a judgment at law against a married woman. Therefore, the judgment entered against her cannot stand.
“It fails to allege essential facts as a basis for a judgment at law against a married woman.”
Identifies the primary legal deficiency in the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs sued Celeste F. Crawford, a married woman operating a mercantile business as a free dealer under Florida statutes, for money owed. A trial …
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.
Liddon, J. :
The declaration filed in this case says that the plaintiffs “sue Celeste F. Crawford, a married woman conducting a mercantile business as a free dealer under the statutes of the State of Florida,” for money payable, etc. There was a trial, verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs. Numerous errors are assigned. The declaration is in the same form as that passed upon in the case of Crawford vs. Feder, 34 Fla., 397, 16 South. Rep., 287. It fails to allege essential facts as a basis for a judgment at law against a married woman. There being no declaration upon which a trial could be had, the errors assigned on account of the rulings of the Circuit Judge at the trial are not open for our consideration. Upon the authority of Crawford vs. Feder, supra, the judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Tedder, 123 Fla. 188 (Fla. 1936)…others, why plead coverture? The purpose of a special plea is to present a fact not apparent of record which will avoid the action, but if the declaration discloses that fact the plea setting up the fact is wholly unnecessary. Crawford v. Tiedeman, 35 Fla. 27, 16 South. Rep. 900; Crawford v. Feder, 34 Fla. 397, 16 South. Rep. 287; Dzialynski v. Bank of Jacksonville, 23 Fla. 346, 2 S. R. 696. Upon the question of the sufficiency of the demurrer the declaration should be construed most strongly against th…
-
Eddins v. Tweddle, 35 Fla. 107 (Fla. 1895)…s not made below, but we can not- refuse to rake notice, when a declaration, or a paper or-pleading which stands in the place of it, utterly fails to show a cause of action. Crawford vs. Feder, 34 Fla. 397, 16 South. Rep. 287; Crawford vs. Tiedeman, 35 Fla. 27, 16 South. Rep. —; Pittman vs. Myrick, 16 Fla. 692; Warburton vs. Coumbe, 34 Fla. 212, 15 South. Rep. 769. There was no error in dismissing the action. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.…
-
Rosenstone v. Johnston, 93 Fla. 319 (Fla. 1927)…la. 297, 16 Sou. 287; Benedict Pine-apple Co. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 55 Fla. 514, 46 Sou. 732; Bank v. Hirsch-Kowitz, 46 Fla. 588, 35 Sou. 22; - v. Tweddle, 35 Fla. 107, 17 Sou. 66; Rice v. Cummings, 51 Fla. 535, 40 Sou. 889 and Crawford v. Tiedman, 35 Fla. 27, 16 Sou. 900, in support of the contention that the judgment is void. Eeference to the cases cited will disclose that the record showed in each case that the married woman was sued as a married woman, • or was sued without reference being made to c…
Authorities Cited
- Celeste F. Crawford v. H. & G. Feder, 34 Fla. 397 (Fla. 1894)