CLUTTER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
NAPLES BUILDERS SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
The court held that a general denial and plea of "never was indebted" is insufficient to raise defenses regarding the quality of goods sold, as such defenses must be affirmatively pleaded.
Clutter Construction Company was sued by Naples Builders Supply Co. for goods sold. At trial, Clutter attempted to cross-examine the plaintiff's witne…
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 And Delivered cases and more on FLexlaw
Clutter Construction Company, Inc., was sued for goods sold. The complaint annexed a fully itemized statement of the account. For its answer the defendant plead a general denial, and added “never was indebted.” At the trial the defendant attempted to cross examine plaintiff’s witness as to the quality of the goods delivered. The-court sustained plaintiff’s objection upon the basis that there was no pleading raising an issue of set-off for inferior goods. *814This ruling was repeated when defendant attempted to offer evidence of a dispute between the parties as to “strength of the concrete delivered.”
These rulings are the basis for defendant’s appeal from the final judgment for plaintiff. We find that no error has been shown because Rule 1.11(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., directs that “Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading * * * shall be asserted in the responsive pleading * * * except” (here follows seven exceptions each inapplicable here).
The plaintiff, Naples Builders Supply Co., Inc., cross assigns error upon the court’s failure to direct the jury to assess interest. It is true that the plaintiff did “ask the court” to include interest but at the time of its motion for directed verdict, it had offered no evidence as to interest. Therefore, the court did not err in failing to compute and include the interest claimed. Cf., Shoup v. Waits, 91 Fla. 378, 107 So. 769.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maytag v. Alfred D. Reid Assocs., 360 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. McNayr v. Cranbrook Investments, Inc., 158 So. 2d 129, 131 (Fla.1963); Turner v. Long, 225 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Clutter Construction Co. v. Naples Builders Supply Co., 166 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Lee County Oil Co. v. Marshall, 98 So. 2d 510, 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957).…
Authorities Cited
- Shoup v. Waits, 91 Fla. 378 (Fla. 1926)
- Naples Builders Supply Co., Inc. v. Clutter Constr. Corp., 152 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)