BLUE LAKE CELERY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
PEYTON-LOFBERG LIVE STOCK 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 reversed a judgment for the plaintiff, finding insufficient evidence to support claims under common counts for work done and account stated.
No, the court held that there was insufficient evidence to establish the reasonable value of work done and material furnished, nor was there sufficient proof of an account stated to bind the defendant.
“If it be conceded that the evidence shows particulars of work done and material furnished by the plaintiff for the defendant. at its request, there is no substantial or appreciable evidence as to the reasonable value of such work and material which is essential under the common count; and there is no sufficient showing of an account stated between the parties under circumstances in evidence that would bind'the defendant corporation for an account stated under the contmon count, therefore the judgment is erroneous, and is hereby reversed.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for reversing the judgment, highlighting the lack of evidence for essential elements of the plaintiff's claims.
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, Blue Lake Celery Company, obtained a judgment against the defendant, Peyton-Lofberg Live Stock Company, based on common counts for "wor…
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 Common Counts cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In an action of assault on common counts judgment for the plaintiff was rendered upon the theory that a recovery should be had upon the common counts for “work done and material furnished by the plaintiff for the defendant at its request,” and for “money found to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff on accounts stated between them. ’ ’ The defendant took writ of error. If it be conceded that the evidence shows particulars of work done and material furnished by the plaintiff for the defendant. at its request, there is no substantial or appreciable evidence as to the reasonable value of such work and material which is essential under the common count; and there is no sufficient showing of an account stated between the parties under circumstances in evidence that would bind'the defendant corporation for an account stated under the contmon count, therefore the judgment is erroneous, and is hereby reversed. See Smith v. Westcott, 34 Fla. 430, 16 South. Rep. 332; Withers v. Sandlin, 44 Fla. 253, 32 South. Rep. 829; Dayton Bridge Co. v. Bond, 47 Fla. 136, 36 South. Rep. 45; Martyn v. Arnold, 36 Fla. 446, 18 South. Rep. 791; Jacksonville, M. P., Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Warriner, 35 Fla. 197, 16 South. Rep. 898; United Hardware-Furniture Co. v. Blue, 59 Fla. 419, 52 South. Rep. 364; Florida R. Co. v. Fox, 67 Fla. 367, 65 South. Rep. 224.
Réversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Martyn v. J. E. Amold & Co., 36 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1895)
- Daytona -Bridge Co. v. Bond, 47 Fla. 136 (Fla. 1904)
- The Jacksonville v. Warriner, 35 Fla. 197 (Fla. 1895)
- Smith v. Westcott, 34 Fla. 430 (Fla. 1894)
- Withers v. Sandlin, 44 Fla. 253 (Fla. 1902)
- The United Hardware-Furniture Co. v. Blue, 59 Fla. 419 (Fla. 1910)
- Fla. Ry. Co. v. Fox, 67 Fla. 367 (Fla. 1914)