C. A. BOONE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
C. A. BEVIS, DEFENDANT 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 lower court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the admission of evidence or the jury's verdict, which was supported by sufficient evidence.
The court held that there was no error in admitting the fertilizer note, as it was relevant to rebut the defendant's set-off claim. The court also held that the verdict was not excessive, as there was sufficient evidence to support the finding for the plaintiff.
“The first error assigned is that the court erred in overruling the defendant’s objection to the introduction of a fertilizer note given by him to Armour & Company, which was paid by the plaintiff.”
This quote describes the primary evidentiary issue raised on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 4 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff filed a lawsuit with common counts for a store account. The defendant pleaded "never indebted" and a set-off. The plaintiff introduced e…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Common Counts cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.:
The declaration contained the usual common counts upon a store account. The defendant pleaded never indebted and a set off. There was verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed and the defendant sued out this writ of error. The first error assigned is that the court erred in overruling the defendant’s objection to the introduction of a fertilizer note given by him to Armour & Company, which was paid by the plaintiff. This payment was introduced to rebut the offset claimed by the defendant and no objection appears to have been made to its introduction.
It is next alleged that the verdict was excessive. There was sufficient evidence to warrant a finding for the plaintiff upon the count of “account stated.” No error of law is assigned either upon the pleadings or the charge of the court, and the verdict being with the evidence, the judgment thereon is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Whitfield, J., concur. Taylor, H'ocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.