DORA A. SULLIVAN, AS EXECUTRIX UNDER THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF J. J. SULLIVAN, SR., DECEASED, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
T. H. STOKES, 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 against an estate on an open account for medical services, finding insufficient evidence of a promise to pay that would toll the statute of limitations.
No, the court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish a promise to pay that would overcome the statute of limitations.
“The evidence showed the account was not presented to the decedent and that it was barred by the three year statute of limitations.”
Establishes the initial legal barrier to the claim.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued the executrix of a decedent's estate for an unpaid medical bill. The account was several years old and barred by the three-year sta…
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 Action On Open Account cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This writ of error was taken to a judgment for the plaintiff' against the executrix of a decedent' on an open account for medical services rendered to the decedent several years before his death. The defendant pleaded never was indebted and the three year statute of limitations. By replication the plaintiff alleged:
“That within three (3) years after the accrual of the said cause of action, and within three (3) years before the institution of this suit, the defendant’s intestate acknowledged said indebtedness and verbally promised to pay the plaintiff the said indebtedness. ’ ’
The evidence showed the account was not presented to the decedent and that it was barred by the three year statute of limitations. The only substantial evidence as to a promise by the decendent to pay the account was that' the decedent stated to the plaintiff, “I want my bill.” “I want a statement.’’ There is testimony that the plaintiff replied to a request for a bill that he would make no charge, the parties being close friends. There is no competent evidence of a promise by the decedent t'o pay the plaintiff any amount so as to toll the statutory bar. Reversed.
Whitfield,, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur. Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
L. Maxcy, Inc. v. Mayo, 103 Fla. 552 (Fla. 1931)…gnorance of its illegitimate content. But as to this feature of the case, we make no decision at this time. That the title to the Act here attacked is constitutionally sufficient, is sustained by the following cases: Johnson v. State ex rel. Maxcy, 99 Fla. 1295, 128 Sou. Rep. 853; Ex Parte Lewinsky, 66 Fla. 324, 63 Sou. Rep. 577, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1156; State v. Bryan, 50 Fla. 293, 39 Sou. Rep. 929; State v. Vestel, 81 Fla. 625, 88 Sou. Rep. 477. And that the prohibition of arsenic sprays on the grow-tr…
-
Doyle Conner v. JOE Hatton, Inc., 216 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 1968)…or sweet corn, in accordance with the standards so established”, designated Subsection (3) (a) 2 of Section 573.17, is in the same category as its predecessor subsection and is limited thereby. In Johnson v. State ex rel. Maxcy, 1930, 99 Fla. 1311, 128 So. 853, this court upheld the inspection provisions of an Act (Ch. 10103, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1925) to protect the sale or transportation of citrus fruit that is immature or otherwise unfit for consumption, stating that the inspection provision “ * *…1 / 2
-
State v. Vocelle, 159 Fla. 88 (Fla. 1947)…; State v. Gray, 61 Conn. 39, 22 A. 675; Meyer v. Decatur, 143 Ill. App. 103; 30 Am. Juris, 329-332; Cooley on Taxation, Vol. 4 (4th Ed.) 3557-8; State ex rel. First Presbyterian Church v. Fuller, supra; Johnson v. State ex rel. Maxcy, 99 Fla. 1311, 128 So. 853; Manchester Press Club v. State Liquor Commission, 89 N.H. 442, 200 A. 407, 116 A. L. R. 1093, Annotations pp. 1098-1100; Texas Liquor Control Board v. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.), 112 S.W. 227. The further contention is made that the proposed hearing a…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence