B. F. WATERS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
SOUTHERN ASPHALT & CONSTRUCTION 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 lower court's judgment for the defendant in a contract dispute over hauling brick. The court found that evidence regarding the payment method, though not explicitly in the written contract, was admissible and supported the jury's verdict.
Yes, the trial court properly admitted testimony about the payment method as it did not contradict the written contract. The jury's verdict for the defendant was supported by substantial evidence.
“As the letter contains no stipulation as to the means and manner of payment, it was proper to admit testimony on this subject that is not inconsistent with the written instrument.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for admitting extrinsic evidence regarding the payment method.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceB. F. Waters sued Southern Asphalt & Construction Company to recover payment for hauling brick. The contract stipulated a price per thousand brick but…
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 Payment cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
Waters brought an action to recover a contract price for hauling brick from a vessel to streets where they were to be used for paving. Trial was had on a plea of payment. There was judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff took writ of error. In a letter written by the Asphalt Company to Waters and accepted by him, it is stipulated that Waters agreed “to haul away from the vessel’s side the entire cargo of vitrified brick * * * at a price of $2.00 per thousand brick.” As the letter contains no stipulation as to the means and manner of payment, it was proper to ad mit testimony on this subject that is not inconsistent with the written instrument.
Over objection the court admitted testimony that by agreement Waters was to be paid for the hauling by officers of the City of Tampa and the amount charged to the Asphalt Company in settling for paving streets. Such testimony was admissible under the issue made.
There was conflicting testimony relative to the agreement as to the manner of payment and as to payment, on which the jury found for the defendant, and as such finding has substantial support in the evidence, and no material and prejudicial errors of law or procedure appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burnett v. Greene, 105 Fla. 35 (Fla. 1931)…Rep. 983; Hill v. Beacham, 79 Fla. 430, 85 South. Rep. 147. Where there is irreconcilable conflict in the testimony on which a decree is based but there is evidence to support the decree it will not be reversed. Waters v. So. Asphalt & Const. Co., 67 Fla. 440, 65 South. Rep. 457; Hogeboom v. Anderson, 70 Fla. 393, 70 South. Rep. 312; Rosenthal v. First Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 74 Fla. 371, 77 South. Rep. 92; Tatum Bros. Real Estate & Inv. Co. v. Osborn, 79 Fla. 130, 83 South. Rep. 703. In case a doubt is rai…
-
Bryan v. St. Andrews Bay Cmty. Hotel Corp., 99 Fla. 132 (Fla. 1930)…144, 118 N. W. R. 40; Bucksport v. Inhabitants of Brewer, 67 Me. 295; Morrow v. N. I. & S. Co., 87 Tenn. 262, 10 A. S. R. 658. Plaintiff in error has cited to us the cases of Chamberlain v. Leslie, 39 Fla. 452, 22 So. R. 736; Waters v. Sou. A. Co., 67 Fla. 440, 65 So. R. 457; Milton v. Burton, 79 Fla. 266, 84 So. R. 147, with the comment that, ‘ ‘ The general rule as to receiving evidence of parol collateral agreements, obtains in this State.” We recognize the rule stated in these cases as being sound, b…
-
Roland v. Mathews, 98 Fla. 695 (Fla. 1929)…also the rule that where there is a direct conflict in the testimony on which a decree is based, but there is evidence to support the decree, it will not be reversed. Lewter v. Price, 25 Fla. 574, 6 So. R. 439; Waters v. Southern Asphalt, etc., Co., 67 Fla. 440, 65 So. R. 457; Hogenoom v. Anderson, 70 Fla. 393, 70 So. R. 312; Sandlin v. Hunter Co., 70 Fla. 514, 70 So. R. 553; Rosenthal v. First Natl. Fire Ins. Co., 74 Fla. 371, 77 So. R. 92; Baldwin v. Christopher, 75 Fla. 605, 79 So. R. 339; Tatum v. City…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence