W. L. MILTEER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY, 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 affirmed a judgment for a railroad company, holding that a claim for damages due to delayed freight transport was barred by the four-year statute of limitations.
Yes, the action was barred by the four-year statute of limitations applicable to actions not specifically provided for in the statute.
“The delayed transportation complained of is alleged to have occurred in March and April, 1907, while the action was begun in October, 1911, after the bar of the statute was effective.”
Establishes the timeline for the statute of limitations analysis.
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 sued the railroad company for damages to perishable freight caused by delayed transportation and delivery. The alleged delay occurred in…
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 Statute Of Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
Milteer brought an action against the railroad company for damages done to perishable freight by failure to promptly transport and deliver it. A final judgment for the defendant on the pleadings was rendered, and the plaintiff took writ of error. Irregularities in preparing the transcript of the record will be passed for a consideration of the real question at issue, viz., Whether the action is barred by the statute of limitations.
In this case a bill of lading and a contract are referred to, yet the action is not brought upon a bill of lading, but upon the common law liability of the defendant carrier for injury to goods caused by delays in transportation. It is therefore not necessary to determine whether the limitation of five years for bringing “an action upon any contract, obligation or liability founded upon an instrument of writing not under seal” is applicable to actions brought specifically upon a bill of lading. An actioix of this character, if not barred by a shorter period of limitation, is covered by the liixxitation of foxxr years for bringing “any action for x*elief xxot specifically provided for in this chapter” of the statxxte of limitations. Bee. 1725 Gen. Stats, of 1906. The delayed transportation complained of is alleged to have occurred in March and April, 1907, while the action was begun in October, 1911, after the bar of the statute was effective.
The judgment for defendant was proper and is hereby affirmed.
Shackleford, G. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hock-er, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Warner v. Ware, 136 Fla. 466 (Fla. 1938)
-
Manning v. Serrano, 97 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1957)…tances of the transaction, the violation of which constitutes a tort, then the injured party has an election to sue in tort or for the breach of contract. Parrish v. Clark, 1933, 107 Fla. 598, 145 So. 848; Milteer v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 1913, 66 Fla. 17, 62 So. 831; Doyle v. City of Coral Gables, 1947, 159 Fla. 802, 33 So. 2d 41; Holbrook v. City of Sarasota, Fla. 1952, 58 So. 2d 862; City of Miami v. Brooks, Fla.1954, 70 So. 2d 306. The general rule for the application of the statute of limitation…
-
Int'l Mail Order, Inc. v. Cap. Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 192 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…for taking of goods or chattels. Appellant contends that its action is for a tort not specifically mentioned in the statute and that therefore the catch-all subsection (4) should apply. The appellant has cited Milteer v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 66 Fla. 17, 62 So. 831 (1913), as authority for its position. An examination of that case will reveal that damages were sought for an “injury” to goods, but the action was based upon the common law liability of a carrier for delays in transportation. There is…