D. E. MCIVER AND GEORGE MCKAY, COPARTNERS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF MCIVER & MCKAY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
SALLIE BELL CROOM, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Fla. | 1910-06-01
Hooker and Parki-iill, J. J., concur., Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur in the opinion., Whitfield, C. J., not participating.
60 Fla. 123 Florida Supreme Court (1910) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

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.

Synopsis

McIver & McKay sued Croom in Marion County circuit court and obtained a jury verdict for $67, substantially less than claimed. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging the denial of their motion for a new trial and the trial court's refusal to strike two of the defendant's pleas.

Holding

The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to strike the pleas, as they were not wholly irrelevant and presented a legitimate issue in the case. The court also upheld the jury verdict because there was evidence in the record upon which the verdict could have been predicated.

Key Quotes

“To authorize the striking out of a plea, it must be not only informal and bad, but it must be wholly irrelevant.”

Establishes the legal standard for when a plea may be struck from the record; sets a high bar requiring complete irrelevance, not mere technical defects.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

McIver & McKay, a copartnership, sued Sallie Bell Croom in the circuit court of Marion County. The case went to trial before a jury, which returned a …

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.

Opinion of the Court
Taylor, J.

Taylor, J.

The plaintiffs in error as plaintiffs below sued the defendant in error as defendant below in the circuit court of Marion county. At the trial the jury returned a verdict for sixty-seven dollars for which judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendant, which sum being considerably less than the plaintiffs claimed in their suit, the plaintiffs moved for a new trial upon the ground that the verdict was not supported by the evidence and was contrary to the evidence. This motion was denied, and the plaintiffs below bring the case here for review by writ of error. The denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to strike certain pleas of the defendant is assigned as error. In the case of Hubbard v. Anderson, 50 Fla., 219, 39 South. Rep., 107, this court has announced the following rule to govern the striking out of pleas: “To authorize the striking out of a plea, it must be not only informal and bad, but it must be wholly irrelevant.” We cannot say that the two pleas that the court below refused to strike out were wholly irrelevant or that they did not present a legitimate issue in the case. This assignment, therefore, fails. There was evidence in the case on behalf of the defendant upon which the verdict returned by the jury could very well have been predicated, and this being true this court cannot disturb it, there being nothing shown to indicate that the jury were influenced by anything outside of the evidence in the case. Finding no error the judgment of the court below in said cause is hereby affirmed at the cost of the plaintiffs in error. Hooker and Parki-iill, J. J., concur. Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur in the opinion.

Whitfield, C. J., not participating.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Randall v. Mickle, 103 Fla. 1229 (Fla. 1931)
    …thern Home Insurance Co. vs. Putual, 57 Fla. 199, 49 So. 922; Guggenheimer & Co. vs. Davidson, 62 Fla. 490, 56 So. 801; Burr vs. Hull, 66 Fla. 20, 63 So. 300) and that a plea must be wholly irrelevant to authorize striking thereof. McIver vs. Croom, 60 Fla. 123, 53 So. 545; St. Petersburg Novelty Works vs. Battle, 66 Fla. 303, 63 So. 445; So. Turpentine Co. vs. Douglass, 61 Fla. 424, 54 So. 385. Can it be said that the stricken plea which we have set out in effect and the “additional plea” which the court…
  • Batchelder v. Prestman, 103 Fla. 852 (Fla. 1931)
    …oy v. Williams, 55 Fla. 723, 46 So. 158; Southern Home Ins. Co. vs. Putnal, 57 Fla. 199, 49 So. 922; Guggenheimer & Co. vs. Davidson, 66 Fla. 20, 63 So. 300), and that a plea must be wholly irrelevant to authorize striking thereof. McIver vs. Croom, 60 Fla. 123, 53 So. 545; St. Petersburg Novelty Works vs. Battle, 66 Fla. 303, 63 So. 445; Southern Home Ins. Co. vs. Putnal, 57 Fla. 199, 49 So. 922; Crandall Florida Common Law Practice 99. The “additional or amended” plea sets up a contract different in cer…
  • Art Lovi v. N. Shore Bank, 137 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
    …es was erroneous. The motion to strike being addressed to the complained of paragraphs in their entirety, if any of the allegations contained in said paragraphs are relevant the motion to strike should have been denied. See: McIver & McKay v. Croom, 60 Fla. 123, 53 So. 545; Southern Turpentine Co. v. Douglass, 61 Fla. 424, 54 So. 385; St. Petersburg Novelty Works v. Battle, 66 Fla. 303, 63 So. 445; Randall v. Mickle, 103 Fla. 1229, 138 So. 14, 141 So. 317, 86 A.L.R. 804; Batchelder v. Prestman, 103 Fla. 85…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw