THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. L. CHESSER AND G. T. COLLINS, PARTNERS, AS THE NEW RIVER FISH COMPANY, 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 directed verdict for the plaintiff in a case concerning damages for spoiled fish due to shipping delays. The court found that the defendant's special pleas, while not perfectly drafted, alleged facts that, if proven, could constitute a defense.
Yes, the trial court erred. The special pleas, despite not being entirely definite, alleged ultimate facts that, if proven, could constitute a valid defense for the defendant.
“In an action to recover damages for the loss of fresh fish that became valueless because of delay in an interstate shipment, the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant initial carrier took writ of error.”
Describes the procedural posture and underlying facts of the case.
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, New River Fish Company, sued the Florida East Coast Railway Company for damages to an interstate shipment of fresh fish that spoiled du…
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 Interstate Shipment cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
— In an action to recover damages for the loss of fresh fish that became valueless because of delay in an interstate shipment, the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant initial carrier took writ of error. Error is assigned on orders sustaining demurrers to several special pleas. The defendant in error argues merely that “the pleas, as framed, do not constitute a sufficient defense.” While the pleas are not entirely definite and specific, they do allege ultimate facts that must
be met by proof from the defendant, and if proven may avail the defendant. This being an interstate shipment, the case should be tried by the rules of procedure applicable thereto. See Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Davis, decided at the present term, 76 Fla. 459, 79 South. Rep. 637.
Reversed for new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McDaniel v. Harrell, 81 Fla. 66 (Fla. 1921)…re a plea to the merits is of such nature that under it a defense to the action may be proved, the plea is good and a demurrer thereto should not be sustained. Hammers v. Southern Express Co., 80 Fla. 51, 85 South. Rep. 246; F. E. C. Ry. v. Chesser, 77 Fla. 57, 80 South. Rep. 750. National Surety Co. v. Williams, 74 Fla. 446, 77 South. Rep. 212; Tampa & J. R. Co. v. Crawford, 67 Fla. 77, 64 South. Rep. 437; Standard Phosphate Co. v. Lunn, 66 Fla. 220, 63 South. Rep. 429. The defense interposed by this pl…
-
The Miami Jockey Club v. Aiken, 120 Fla. 544 (Fla. 1935)…went to the matter of that item of damages claimed which is referred to in the charge. The charge should also have been .limited to such damages as the evidence “makes' reasonably certain will result from the injury sustained.” Grainger v. Fuller, 77 Fla. 57, 72 So. 462. Another assignment of error is that the court erred in instructing the jury to disregard certain testimony given by the witness Haverl. While we are not clear in our minds that the court was entirely correct in this' ruling, we hardly…
-
Hammers v. S. Express Co., 80 Fla. 51 (Fla. 1920)…the plea, a judgment' of dismissal because of such refusal will be affirmed. Where a plea to the merits is of such a nature that under it a defense to the action may be proven, the plea should be sustained on demurrer; see F. E. C. Ry. v. Chesser, 77 Fla. 57, 80 South. Rep. 750; and if the plea is so framed as to prejudice or embarrass or delay a fair trial of the action, compulsory amendment thereof may be had under the statute. §1433 Gen. Stats. 1906. A common carrier of goods is liable as an insurer…
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
- Davis v. State, 76 Fla. 459 (Fla. 1918)