SAVOY SHIRT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
CALLAWAY CLOTHING COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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 the defendant in a sales dispute, holding that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence and that any procedural errors did not prejudice the plaintiff.
Yes, the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence, and no procedural errors caused prejudice to the plaintiff.
“The evidence does not show an acceptance of the goods by the defendant, or any act of the defendant inconsistent with the ownership of the plaintiff.”
Establishes the lack of acceptance of goods by the defendant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSavoy Shirt Company sued Callaway Clothing Company for goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff claimed the order was for $617.13, while the defendant …
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 Acceptance Of Goods cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
In an action under common counts for goods sold and delivered and a plea of never was indebted, there was a verdict and a judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff took writ of error. There is a conflict in the testimony as to the amount of the goods ordered, the plaintiff contending that the order amounted to $617.13 for shirts, while the defendant insists that the amount was about $300.00. The evidence shows that the goods were received at the defendant’s store and some of them were placed on the shelves by mistake and without authority; but when the excessive shipment was discovered, all the goods were promptly returned. The evidence does not show an acceptance of the goods by the defendant, or any act of the defendant inconsistent with the ownership of the plaintiff. The conflict in the testimony as to the amount of the order was settled by the jury. As the evidence is not such as to justify this court in disturbing the verdict, and as errors of procedure, if any, could not reasonably have injured substantial rights of the plaintiff, the judgment is affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell and Ellis JJ., concur.