JOHN HURLY'S EX'OR, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANCIS ROCHE, 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.
A widow's executor sued to recover an open account allegedly owed by Francis Roche to the deceased testator. The trial court refused to instruct the jury that a defendant's admission of owing part of the amount was sufficient for partial recovery without proof of the identical account, reversible error that the Florida Supreme Court corrected.
The court held that the trial court erred in refusing the requested jury instruction and in instructing the jury that the party name variance prevented recovery. The court reversed and remanded for new trial, establishing that a defendant's partial admission of liability allows recovery for that portion without requiring proof of the identical account.
“The law is well settled, that the non-joinder of a defendant is pleadable in abatement and may not be objected to at the trial as matter of variance.”
Establishes that the party name variance cannot serve as a bar to recovery at trial; it must be raised as a plea in abatement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff's executor sued to recover approximately three hundred dollars from defendant Roche on an open account. Two witnesses testified they had pre…
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 Suit On Open Account cases and more on FLexlaw
BALTZELL, C. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
Thi6 was a suit instituted by plaintiff to recover the amount of an open account, alleged to be due by defendant Roche to plaintiff’s testator. On the trial, Philip A. Carro was introduced as a witness by the plaintiff. Upon the account which was filed in the case being placed in his hands, he said that he had presented an account to the defendant for payment in favor of John Hurley, dec’d, for something over three hundred dollars, which defendant promised to pay; but he could not say that this was the same piece of paper, or that it contained the same items of charges, or any of them; thinks the account was against Francis Roche & Co., and that the goods were so marked which were sent to defendant.
Whereupon plaintiff’s counsel moved the court to instruct the jury, that if the defendant admitted to Carro, witness, that any part of the amount was due, the jury may find for the plaintiff to that extent, without proof of the identical amount sued on; which instruction the court refused to give, but instructed the jury that if they were satisfied that the account submitted in evidence is substantially the same in its items of charges as that presented to defendant by witness, which defendant promised to pay, and are satisfied that the defendant promised to pay any part of the same, then they may find a verdict for so much of such amount as was proved that defendant promised to pay.
Samuel A. Leonard was also introduced as a witness, and said the account sued on was placed in his hands for collection; that he presented the account to defendant, which he promised to pay. The account which he presented was against Francis Roche & Co. The court charged the jury, that they must, in order to find for plaintiff in this action, be satisfied from the testimony that the account sued on and presented at the trial is substantially the same in its items of charges as the one presented by witness. The court also charged the jury, that if the account sued ou and filed as the cause of action is against Francis Roche, and the account presented to the defendant, and which he promised to pay, was against Francis Roche & Oo., there will he a variation between the evidence and the declaration, and plaintiff is not entitled to recover on such evidence. To these instructions, as given, and the refusal to give those ashed, exception was taken, and they present the ground of error in this court.
It is conceded by defendant’s counsel that there is error, as we are satisfied there was, in the refusal to give the instructions asked for, as well as in the instructions given.
The law is well settled, that the non-joinder of a defendant is pleadable in abatement and may not he objected to at the trial as matter of variance. The instructions asked for, too, we think, should have been given as being founded on obvious principles of law and right.
The judgment will be reversed and set aside and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.