F. H. RAND, JR.,
v.
MAYME J. PEPPARD, ET AL.
F. H. RAND, JR.,
MAYME J. PEPPARD, ET AL.
112 Fla. 440
Florida Supreme Court (1933)
Caution
Also reported at: 150 So. 592
Cited by 9 cases
Opinion of the Court
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the *441judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged- by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sottile v. Gaines Constr. Co., 281 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…ing after its execution ? A release executed by a party attempting to assert a claim allegedly barred by said release is an affirmative defense and must be pleaded in the answer. RCP 1.110(d) 30 F.S.A.; W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Langford, 112 Fla. 487, 150 So. 592. Of course, an available affirmative defense not pleaded in the answer is deemed to be waived. Fink v. Powsner, Fla.App.1958, 108 So. 2d 324. Moreover, the entry of a decree pro confesso or default judgment [*561] generally precludes a party from su…
-
Enstrom v. Dunning, 124 Fla. 571 (Fla. 1936)…in the court below. Nor was it pleaded. The general rule is that estoppel, to be availed of on the trial or hearing must be specially pleaded. 10 R. C. L. 842; Lakeland v. Turner, 207 Ala. 73, 91 So. 877; W. T. Raleigh Co. v. Langford, 112 Fla. 487, 150 So. 592. Nor was this question embraced in the statement of questions involved, as made by appellant or as corrected by appellee. And surely partial payments made on a usurious contract, either before or after maturity cannot estop the borrower [*579] from…
-
Sunrise Lakes Condo. Apts. v. Hechtman, 446 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…d waiver. Nonetheless, the trial court concluded that the appellant was estopped from requiring the removal of the washing machine and dryer. Estoppel must be specifically pled or it is considered waived. W.T. Rawleigh Co. v. Langford, 112 Fla. 487, 150 So. 592 (1933); Department of Revenue v. Hobbs, 368 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). [*273] Appellant further maintains that it was error for the trial court to deny its motion for summary final judgment. The trial court found that because both sides moved f…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence