TOMAS ALVARINIA AND JACINTO ALFONSO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF ALVARINIA & ALFONSO, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
LOUIS ROUCH, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF L. ROUCH & CO., 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 in an assumpsit action, finding that the evidence did not clearly establish the defendants' liability for the full amount claimed for carloads of eggs.
No, the evidence did not clearly show a sale to the defendants of all the cars of eggs under conditions warranting recovery of the entire amount claimed.
“The evidence does not clearly show a sale to the defendants of all the cars of eggs under such conditions as warrant a recovery of the entire amount claimed on the issues made.”
This quote explains the primary reason for reversing the lower court's decision.
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 sued the defendants for the price of several carloads of eggs. A judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. The defendants appealed.…
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.
Per Curiam.
In an action of assumpsit on the common counts, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for the price of several car loads of eggs. The defendants took writ of error. The evidence does not clearly show a sale to the defendants of all the cars of eggs under such conditions as warrant a recovery of the entire amount claimed on the issues made. See Blue Lake Celery Co. v. Peyton-Lofberg Live Stock Co., decided last term.
The evidence tends to show separate transactions for different cars of eggs rather than a running account between the parties involving continuous shipments of cars of eggs. Irrelevant portions of the replication should be eliminated.
As liability of the defendants under the declaration for definite amounts is not clearly shown, this is not a proper case for suggesting a remittitur..
Reversed for a new trial.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alvarino v. Rauch, 91 Fla. 293 (Fla. 1926)…Buford, J. — This case is on writ of error to the circuit Court of Monroe County from a final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the sum of $28,326.02 with costs. See former writ of error, Alvarino v. Rauch, 85 Fla. 40, 95 So. 121. The case presents no new question of law to be determined but turns entirely upon the question of whether or not the verdict is supported by the preponderance of the evidence. This question is properly raised by the second ground and t…