C. M. MESSER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
M .L. DEKLE, C. C. LIDDON AND J. D. SMITH, DEFENDANTS 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 reversed a default judgment against a defendant in an assumpsit case. The court found that the trial court erred in striking the defendant's plea of "never did promise as alleged," which is a statutorily permissible plea in such cases.
Yes, the trial court erred in striking the defendant's plea. The statute expressly allows for such a plea in declarations on contracts other than bills and notes.
“To an amended declaration in assumpsit alleging the nonpayment of a subscription to be paid “in the event a railroad is built to Marianna, Fla., with a possible northern connection,” the performance of the condition precedent being alleged, the defendant filed among other pleas, a plea “that he never did promise as in said declaration alleged.””
Describes the core of the defendant's defense that was struck.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff filed an amended declaration in assumpsit alleging nonpayment of a subscription conditioned on a railroad being built to Marianna, Flori…
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 Assumpsit cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
— A judgment herein was rendered on a former writ of error, 61 Fla. 33, 54 South. Rep. 366. To an amended declaration in assumpsit alleging the nonpayment of a subscription to be paid “in the event a railroad is built to Marianna, Fla., with a possible northern connection,” the performance of the condition precedent being alleged, the defendant filed among other pleas, a plea “that he never did promise as in said declaration alleged.” This plea was stricken. Other pleas were stricken or held bad on demurrer, and the defendant not pleading further, a judgment by default for want of a plea was entered by the court and a final judgment for the plaintiffs was entered by the clerk. The defendant Messer took writ of error and assigns as error the order striking the above quoted plea. The statute (Gen. Stats. 1467) expressly provides that the plea “did not promise as alleged”, shall be applicable to declarations on contracts, other than bills and notes.
For the error in striking the quoted plea, the judgment is reversed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford, Cockrell, and Hocker, JJ., concur.