LAKELAND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
SEBRING DEVELOPMENT 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 lower court's judgment for the defendant in a case where the plaintiff sued for a balance due on lumber. The appellate court could not review the alleged errors because no bill of exceptions was filed.
No, the appellate court cannot review alleged errors without a bill of exceptions, especially when the trial court approved the jury's verdict.
“No bill of exceptions is brought to this court and the verdict of the jury was approved by the trial court.”
Establishes the procedural posture and lack of record for appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLakeland Manufacturing Company sued Sebring Development Company for $255.46, the balance due on a carload of lumber. The defendant filed pleas of "nev…
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.
Lakeland Manufacturing Company sued Sebring Development Company on common counts to recover $255.46 balance due on one car load of lumber delivered by rail at Sebring, Florida, in November, 1920. To the declaration the defendant entered three pleas, viz, “never indebted;” “payment,” and “set off.”
There was a demurrer to the plea of set off which was overruled after which replication was filed and the case was tried before a jury which resulted in verdict and judg ment for defendant. Writ of error is taken to the final judgment.
The demurrer to the plea of set off for the purposes thereof was an admission of the truth of the statements therein. It appears from the record that the case went to trial on the pleas of never indebted and payment and the replication to the plea of set off.
No bill of exceptions is brought to this court and the verdict of the jury was approved by the trial court. We are therefore unable to say that the errors complained of were not cured in the final judgment, which is hereby affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and West and Terrell, J. J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis, J., concur in the opinion.