PENINSULAR SUPPLY CO.
v.
COLEMAN
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 appellate court reversed a summary judgment granted to the defendant, finding that the plaintiff should have an opportunity to prove its claim based on the defendant's alleged personal promise, regardless of whether a claim could have been brought against the deceased husband's estate.
Yes, the plaintiff should have an opportunity to prove its claim against the defendant on the promise she is alleged to have made. The ability to sue the decedent's personal representative is immaterial to this separate claim.
“Whether or not the plaintiff could now maintain an action against the husband's personal representative is immaterial.”
Establishes that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is independent of any claim against the estate.
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 defendant on a promise she allegedly made after her husband's death. The defendant's husband owed money to the plaintiff, and t…
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 General Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff (appellant) sued on a promise made by the defendant after her husband’s death. On defendant’s motion for summary judgment she submitted her affidavit that her husband owed some money to the plaintiff at the time of his death in July 1953. The plaintiff failed to file a claim against the husband’s estate. The wife, (defendant) continues to run her late husband’s business and paid off about $750 of her husband’s debt to the plaintiff. On this summary judgment was entered in the defendant’s favor.
This, I think was error. Whether or not the plaintiff could now maintain an action against the husband’s personal representative is immaterial. The plaintiff does not have that kind of action. It is suing Mrs. Coleman on a promise made by Mrs. Coleman. It should not suffer a judgment against it because (if that be the case) the plaintiff could not maintain an action against the decedent’s personal representative. The plaintiff is entitled to an opportunity to prove its allegations against Mrs. Coleman on the promise she is alleged to have made to the plaintiff. While most of the defendant’s answer raises the same irrelevant matters as does the motion for summary judgment, it does contain a general denial so issues of fact have been framed.
The judgment appealed from is reversed.