NAPLES BUILDERS SUPPLY CO., INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CLUTTER CONSTRUCTION CORP., APPELLEE
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.
A complaint substantially conforming to approved statutory forms, with a full statement of account attached, is sufficient to state a cause of action under current rules of practice.
Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of its second amended complaint, as well as prior dismissed complaints. The sole issue was whether a complaint form p…
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 Goods Sold cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff appeals an order dismissing its second amended complaint. Error is also assigned for the dismissal of the first *479complaint and the first amended complaint. The sole question presented by this appeal is whether a complaint in the form previously approved by statute (§ 51.03, now repealed) for goods sold, to which was attached a full statement of account, is sufficient under the present rules of practice.1
In Kislak v. Kreedian, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 510, Mr. Justice Drew speaking for the Supreme Court set forth the measure which must he applied in this state to determine the sufficiency of a complaint to state a cause of action:
“While the Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the complaint shall be sufficient if it informs the defendant of the nature of the cause against him, the complaint must sufficiently allege the ultimate facts which, if established by competent evidence, would support a decree granting the relief sought under law. In other words, the complaint must allege a cause of action recognized under law against the defendants; otherwise it does not, in contemplation of the rule, ‘inform the defendant of the nature of the cause against him.’ To put it another way, the ‘nature of the cause’ has reference to a cause of action cognizable under the law.”
Tested by the measure given, plaintiff’s first amended complaint was sufficient.
Paragraph one of the amended complaint substantially conforms to Form 15 set forth following Rule 1.8, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.2 These forms are published in 30 F.S.A., beginning at page 150. See Edgewater Drugs, Inc. v. Jax Drugs, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 525, 527. Section 51.02, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. states, in effect, that these forms shall be sufficient in the statement of a complaint. In addition, the complete statement of charges attached to this complaint fully apprised the defendant of the amounts alleged to be owed. In speaking of the same complaint form as that involved here, the Supreme Court has said:
“Form 5 would have been appropriate in the present action, and Count one of the complaint here considered would have been sufficient as compliance with that form, if it had stated the period of time during which the goods were sold and delivered and if the basis for the claim was for articles of manufacture and commerce.” Moore v. Boyd, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 427, 428.
We, therefore, hold that the trial judge erred in his order dismissing plaintiff’s first amended complaint, which is labelled “amended complaint” and was filed July 3, 1961. It is true that this complaint attempted to join several other statements *480of the alleged cause of action m the form previously approved by statute. But inasmuch as the account which is attached supports only the count for goods bargained and sold, these latter statements may be disregarded as surplusage and are subject to being stricken upon motion. Accordingly the order of dismissal is reversed and the cause remanded with direction to the trial judge to enter an order requiring the defendant to file its answer to the amended complaint of July 3, 1961, within such reasonable time as the trial judge shall find appropriate, and for further proceedings in the cause.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dawson v. Blue Cross Ass'n, 293 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…a-Georgia Television Company, Fla.App. 1st 1969, 218 So. 2d 787.] The allegations must, of course, be sufficient to inform the defendant of the nature of the cause against him. [Naples Builders Supply Co. v. Clutter Constr. Corp., Fla.App. 3rd 1963, 152 So. 2d 478.] [*93] A motion to dismiss may not act as a substitute for a motion for summary judgment, and a court may not properly go beyond the four corners of the allegations of the complaint when considering a motion to dismiss it. This court held in Thomps…
-
Thomas v. George Rollins et ux., 298 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…a-Georgia Television Company, Fla.App. 1st 1969, 218 So. 2d 787.] The allegations must, of course, be sufficient to inform the defendant of the nature of the cause against him. [Naples Builders Supply Co. v. Clutter Constr. Corp., Fla.App. 3rd 1963, 152 So. 2d 478.] “A motion to dismiss may not act as a substitute for a motion for summary judgment, and a court may not properly go beyond the four corners of the allegations of the complaint when considering a motion to dismiss it. This court held in Thompson v…
-
Doyle v. Flex, 210 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…CAIN and OWEN, JJ., concur. . Loving v. Viecelli, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 560; Ocala Loan Co. v. Smith, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 711. . Kislak v. Kreedian, Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 510; Naples Builders Supply Co. v. Clutter Const. Corp., Fla.App.1963, 152 So. 2d 478. . Crutchfield v. Adams, Fla.App.1963, 152 So. 2d 808. . Mortgage Comm. Servicing Corp. v. Brock, 1939, 60 Ga.App. 695, 4 S.E. 2d 669. . Wilkie v. Randolph Trust Co., 316 Mass. 267, 55 N.E. 2d 466.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kislak v. Koren Kreedian, 95 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1957)
- Moore v. Boyd, 62 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1952)
- Edgewater Drugs, Inc. v. JAX Drugs, Inc., 138 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)