GLOBE THEATRE AND AMUSEMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
GEORGE K. WATT, 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.
Globe Theatre appealed a judgment rendered against it in a contract action, arguing the case was tried improperly because no formal similiter was filed to perfect the pleadings. The Florida Supreme Court held that a joinder of issue validly placed the case at issue, and after a full trial on the merits, the absence of a formal similiter is immaterial and does not warrant reversal.
The judgment is affirmed. A joinder of issue, even without a formal similiter, is sufficient to place a case at issue. After a full trial on the merits, the absence of a similiter is merely a technical defect that does not warrant reversal, especially when the opposing party did not insist on the requirement.
“Under the decisions of this court it is error to allow a cause to go to trial in the absence of any reply to, or joinder of issue on, a plea which requires something more Than a mere similiter to put it in issue.”
Establishes the general rule requiring joinder of issue on certain pleas, but distinguishes the present case where joinder was actually made
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge K. Watt sued Globe Theatre and Amusement Company on a contract under seal. The corporation pleaded as defenses a concurrent parol contract and …
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 Contract Under Seal cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
— George K. Watt brought an action against the corporation on its contract under seal. The corporation pleaded as a bar to the action a concurrent parol contract and also a want of consideration for the contract under seal sued on. No demurrer to these pleas was interposed, but by a paper filed in the cause the plaintiff “takes and joins issue” on the pleas. Judg ment was rendered for the plaintiff and the defendant took writ of error. The only contention here is that the canse was erroneously tried when it “was not at issue, no replication having been filed to the pleas of defendant setting up new matter” as a defense to the action.
Under the decisions of this court it is error to allow a cause to go to trial in the absence of any reply to, or joinder of issue on, a plea which requires something more Than a mere similiter to put it in issue. Muller v. Ocala Foundry & Machine Works, 49 Fla. 189, 38 South. Rep. 64; Asia v. Hiser, 22 Fla. 378; Livingston v. L’Engle, 22 Fla. 427; Livingston v. Anderson, 30 Fla. 117, 11 South. Rep. 270. In the cited cases there was no response to or issue taken on pleas that required something more than a mere similiter. Section 1447, General Statutes of 1906, Section 1055, Revised Statutes, provides that “Either party may plead in answer to the plea or subsequent pleading of his adversary, that he joins issue thereon, which joinder of issue may be as follows, or to the like effect: ‘the plaintiff joins issue upon the defendant’s-plea.’-such form of joinder of issue shall be deemed to be a denial of the substance of the plea,-and an issue thereon, and in all eases where plaintiff’s pleading is in denial of the pleading of the defendant, or some part of it, the plaintiff may add a joinder of issue for the defendant.”
In this case there was a taking or joinder of issue on the pleas tendering issues even though such plea's may have been insuíficiént in law as a defense to the action. Under the statute the joinder of issue filed operated as a denial of thé averments of the pleas, and'the plaintiff could have formally added, for the defendant, a simimiter or acceptance of the issue taken or tendered by the plaintiff in his pleading stating that “the plaintiff - for replication to the foregoing pleas of the defendant, says that he takes and. joins issue thereon.”
After a full trial of an action at law upon the merits, the mere absence of a similiter to a plea or replication is not ground for a reversal of Hie judgment, the similiter not having been insisted on by the opposing party or required by the court. Huling v. Florida Savings Bank, 19 Fla. 695; Wilson v. Hunter, 25 Fla. 169, 6 South. Rep. 132; Florida Ry. Nav. Co. v. Webster, 25 Fla. 391, 5 South. Rep. 711; Barrs v. Brace, 38 Fla. 265, 20 South. Rep. 991; Frank v. Williams, 36 Fla. 136, 18 South. Rep. 351; St. Johns H. R. Co. v. Shalley, 33 Fla. 397, 14 South. Rep. 890.
As there was a joinder of issue on the pleas, and the filing of a similiter is a mere form that is immaterial after judgment on the merits the error asserted does not appear and the judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur;
Taylor, Hocker and Parki-iill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States Gypsum Co. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 124 Fla. 633 (Fla. 1936)…o the judge in place of a jury waived the demurrer and motion to strike and elected to go to trial upon the averments of fact made in the plea. The order recites that issue was joined. In that case a similiter was immaterial. Globe Theater v. Watt, 62 Fla. 196, 57 South. Rep. 201. If the plea tendered an immaterial issue and was accepted by the plaintiff the parties had a right to go to trial on it. Nelson v. Hall, 73 Fla. 810, 74 South. Rep. 877; Hood v. French, 37 Fla. 117, 19 South. Rep. 165; Cotton S…
-
Carroll v. Gore, 106 Fla. 582 (Fla. 1932)…the absence of any replication to an amended plea made at the trial, would be where the new plea would require more than a mere similiter to put it in issue. Muller v. Ocala Foundry & Machine Works, 49 Fla. 189, 38 So. 64; Globe Theatre Co. v. Watt, 62 Fla. 196, 57 So. 201. That condition does not exist in the instant case. An examination of the original pleas, filed December 2, 1929, to' the declaration will disclose that the demurrer thereto should have been sustained as they merely allege in general ter…
-
Cracowaner v. Carlton Nat'l Bank, 98 Fla. 792 (Fla. 1929)…plaintiff joins issue upon pleas of the nature here in question the cause may be regarded as at issue. American Tie & Timber Co. v. Washington, 62 Fla. 117, 57 So. R. 201; Flournoy v. Munson Bros., 51 Fla. 198, 41 So. R. 398; Globe Theater v. Watt, 62 Fla. 196, 57 So. R. 201. The action was originally commenced against Cracowaner and Weber, the makers, and Winemiller who was the payee and an endorser in due course, as joint defendants. The defendants Cracowaner and Weber pleaded jointly. Winemiller filed…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Livingston v. L'Engle, 22 Fla. 427 (Fla. 1886)
- Huling v. The Fla. Sav. Bank & Real Est. Exch., 19 Fla. 695 (Fla. 1883)
- Frank Herman & Co. v. Helena Williams, 36 Fla. 136 (Fla. 1895)
- St. Johns & Halifax R.R. Co. v. Shalley, 33 Fla. 397 (Fla. 1894)
- Livingston v. Anderson, 30 Fla. 117 (Fla. 1892)
- Muller v. Ocala Foundry and Machine Works, 49 Fla. 189 (Fla. 1905)
- Sim Asia v. Hiser, 22 Fla. 378 (Fla. 1886)
- Barrs v. Brace, 38 Fla. 265 (Fla. 1896)