W. W. GORDON, BEIRNE GORDON, AND G. A. GORDON, CO-PARTNERS AS W. W. GORDON & COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
J. M. HAILE, 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 reviewed a case where a trial court set aside a jury verdict. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to file specific pleas detailing the plaintiff's alleged violation of instructions, which was central to the defendant's case.
Yes, the trial court erred in refusing to permit the defendant to file the specific pleas. While a general plea of set off might not strictly include such a claim, the plaintiffs' failure to object to related cross-interrogatories indicated a waiver of any objection to the scope of the issues.
“In this case a verdict for the plaintiffs was set aside by the trial court.”
Establishes the initial action taken by the trial court that led to the appeal.
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 for a balance due on cotton broker advances. The defendant attempted to present evidence that the brokers violated instructions by hol…
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.
Cockrell, J.
—
In this case a verdict for the plaintiffs was set aside by the trial court.
In brief, the record discloses an action upon the common counts with the general pleas of never indebted and set off. The original claim is for the balance upon an advance by cotton brokers, less credits for cotton shipped. At the trial the defendant offered to prove that the broker had violated instructions by holding the cotton until the market dropped, thus causing the deficit; the evidence was rejected as not being within the issues, whereupon the defendant tendered pleas setting up specifically these facts, but permission to file them was refused, and the refusal made a ground of motion for new trial upon the directed verdict.
We think the court could properly revise its discretion and permit the pleas to be filed. While perhaps, strictly speaking, the general plea of set off might not include the violation of instructions, yet the failure of the plaintiffs to make timely objections to the cross-interrogatories propounded to them along this line, reserving such objections to the trial avoids the laches that might otherwise be imputed to the defendant in failing to discover the narrowness that might restrict the issues open to him. Upon this writ of error we need-go no farther, but affirm the order. All concur, except Taylor, J., absent on account of illness.