SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
GEORGE W. BROWN, 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.
Seaboard Air Line Railway was sued by George W. Brown for the loss of a carload of tomatoes valued at $463 during shipment from Florida to Pennsylvania. The trial court awarded damages of $539.68, including interest not claimed in the declaration, and the Florida Supreme Court held this exceeded the ad damnum clause and was therefore excessive.
The court held that a plaintiff cannot recover greater damages than are claimed in the ad damnum clause of the declaration. While interest at the legal rate may be allowed as an incident to recovery without express claim if the ad damnum clause is sufficient to cover it, the judgment was excessive because it awarded $76.68 more than the ad damnum claimed.
“it is well established that a plaintiff can not recover greater damages than are claimed in his declaration”
States the fundamental rule governing recovery limitations based on the ad damnum clause
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown delivered a carload of tomatoes to Seaboard Air Line Railway for carriage from Anthony, Florida to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The tomatoes were…
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.
West, J.
— This is an action for the value of a carload of tomatoes delivered by defendant in error to plaintiff in error for carriage from Anthony, Florida, and delivery to the consignee of such shipment in the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It was tried before the Circuit Jude, a jury having been waived, who found in favor of the plaintiff.
The value of the car of tomatoes was alleged to be four hundred and sixty-three dollars ($463:00), and it was alleged that the defendant carrier had not made delivery of such shipment as agreed and that the same was therefore wholly lost to the plaintiff. The damages laid in the ad damnum clause of the declaration is $463.00, the alleged value of the goods delivered for carriage.
The Circuit Judge found in favor of the plaintiff, assessed his damages and entered judgment' in his' favor and against the defendant in the sum of $539.68, which included interest on the amount of the claim, although no interest was claimed in the declaration.
Several errors are assigned, but it is necessary to consider only the one which questions the finding and the judgment on the ground that they are excessive.
The ad dammm clause of a declaration is to give notice to the defendant of the extent of the plaintiff’s claim, and it is well established that a plaintiff can not recover greater damages than are claimed in his declaration. 2 Greenleaf on Evidence, Sec. 260; 1 Chitty on Pleading, p. 442; Weber v. Morris & Essex R. R. Co., 35 N. J. L. 409; Karnuff v. Kelch, 69 N. J. L. 499, 55 Atl. Rep. 163; Anderson v. Carlin, 24 Fla. 199, 3 South. Rep. 577; Camp v. First Nat. Bank of Ocala, 44 Fla. 497, 33 South. Rep. 241. In the latter case this court said: “Where interest at the legal rate is allowed as an incident to the recovery it is not necessary that there should be an express claim for interest in the declaration, provided the ad damnum clause is sufficient to cover it.”
There was, therefore, error in the finding and judgment, but if the plaintiff below will enter a remittitur of seventy-six and 68/100 dollars ($76.68) the judgment will stand affirmed; otherwise the judgment will stand reversed on the thirtieth day after the mandate is filed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Treadway v. Terrell, 117 Fla. 838 (Fla. 1935)…57] filed in the Circuit Court; -but that is not necessary when interest is claimed as an incident to the main claim and the ad damnum clause is sufficient to cover the amount of interest claimed. See Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Brown, 77 Fla. 155, 81 So. 107. The proceedings before the Board of Arbitration are not brought here, and a writ of prohibition should not be issued as under the law a proper claim for interest may legally be incidental to the main claims, all arising under contract for work done…
-
Getelman v. Burton R. Levey, 481 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…rest is procedurally unnecessary. Jockey Club, Inc. v. Bleemer, Levine & Associates, 413 So. 2d 433, 434-35, n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Winchester v. Florida Electric Supply, Inc., 161 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); see Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Brown, 77 Fla. 155, 81 So. 107 (1919); Southeastern Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Transit Homes, Inc., 192 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966).6 Mr. Levey next argues that the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to amend his complaint to include a claim for treble damages un…
-
Se. Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Transit Homes, Inc., 192 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…ought not to have been released, it being in trust, it cannot earn interest. The said $3,000.00 bears interest from the time it should have been delivered to the plaintiff on demand. As to the second point, Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Brown, 1919, 77 Fla. 155, 81 So. 107, stands for the proposition that where interest is allowed as an incident to the recovery, it may be awarded even though not specifically requested, so long as the amount sought in the ad damnum clause is sufficient to cover it. Also, in…
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
- Camp v. First Nat'l Bank of Ocala, 44 Fla. 497 (Fla. 1902)
- Anderson v. Carlin & Fulton, 24 Fla. 199 (Fla. 1888)