GORDON J. BARNETT
v.
C. M. SLAUGHTER
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.
In this breach of contract and tort misrepresentation case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment of nonsuit, holding that an amended declaration alleging a tort cause of action based on events occurring more than three years before the amended declaration's filing is barred by the three-year statute of limitations, even though the original declaration alleged breach of contract for the same underlying property transaction.
The amended declaration asserting a tort cause of action is barred by the three-year statute of limitations because the cause of action did not accrue within three years of the amended declaration's filing, regardless of when the original breach of contract cause of action accrued.
“The cause of action alleged in the amended declaration is a different cause of action from that alleged in the original declaration.”
Establishes that the tort claim in the amended declaration is legally distinct from the original breach of contract claim, triggering separate statute of limitations analysis.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Barnett originally filed a declaration alleging breach of contract regarding the sale of certain property under foreclosure. On August 5, 19…
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 Voluntary Nonsuit cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before us on motion to dismiss the writ of error or affirm the judgment of the lower court. It is the second appearance of the case here. See Slaughter v. Barnett, 114 Fla. 352, 154 Sou. 134. That opinion was filed March 27th, 1934.
The declaration before us in that case set up as a cause of action breach of contract. On August 5, 1935, plaintiff in the court below amended his declaration. The amended declaration filed on the 5th day of August, 1935, is a decla*238ration in tort alleged to have been committed by Slaughter in the misrepresentation of facts connected with the sale of certain property (which was the same property involved in the original declaration) under foreclosure.
The cause of action alleged in the amended declaration is a different cause of action from that alleged in the original declaration.
A plea to the amended declaration which was sustained by the court below when attacked by demurrer and motion to strike was as follows:
“1. That the alleged cause of action did not accrue within three (3) years before the filing of said amended declaration.”
The Order was as follows:
“Now this day this cause coming on to be heard, upon due notice, upon the motion to strike and demurrer directed by plaintiff to the pleas filed by the defendant numbered 1, 2 and 9, and each of same severally, addressed to the last amended declaration, and the court having heard the argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises,
“It Is Considered by the Court That the said motion to strike and demurrer be and they are hereby sustained as to Pleas numbered 2 and 9, and overruled as to Plea No. 1. Exception noted for Plaintiff.
“And Plaintiff having announced that he does not care to plead further save to join issue on said first plea, which he now does', the Court notes such joinder of issue on said first plea.
“Done and Ordered in open Court at Orlando, Florida, this 13th day of November, A. D. 1935.”
Issue was joined on Plea No. 1.
Order entered in open court on the 13th day of November, 1935, is as follows:
*239“It Being Stipulated by and Between Counsel for respective parties hereto, in open Court, that, for the purpose of bringing said cause to an immediate determinative issue, the defendant withdraws all pleas herein filed savé the first plea to the last amended declaration, hereby reserving the privilege, in the case of reversal in this cause by the Supreme Court, of repleading the pleas which he has already interposed, other than the first plea.
“Thereupon, the Plaintiff joins issue on said first plea and announces that the first plea is true in point of fact as referring to the date of filing of the last amended declaration, and the plaintiff does not care to dispute the fact that the cause of action complained of occurred more than three years since the last amended declaration was filed, it being the contention of the plaintiff that the three-year Statute does not apply in point .of law, because the cause of action sued on in the last amended declaration is the same as that sued upon in the original declaration arid that at the- time of filing this suit neither three nor five years has passed since the cause of action arose.
“Thereupon, a Jury having been empaneled in the box to try the issue in the said cause, and the Court having announced that he would direct a verdict for the defendant on the first plea, namely, the plea of the Statute of Limitations of three years, on the admis'sion of the Plaintiff that in point of fact said plea is true as relates to the date of the accrual of the cause of action prior to the filing of the last amended declaration, and counsel for both sides have rested, counsel for plaintiff thereupon elects to take a voluntary nonsuit with right to bill of exceptions which is thereupon done in open Court. Sixty days' allowed for presenting bill of exceptions.”
*240Thereupon, judgment of nonsuit was entered. To this judgment writ of error was taken.
The judgment should be affirmed on authority of Livingston v. Malever, 103 Fla. 200, 137 Sou. 113, and cases there cited.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Puleston v. Alderman, 4 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1941)…, 137 So. 113, which cases have been cited with approval and followed in Courtright. v. Tunicliffe, 104 Fla. 720, 140 So. 777; James v. Dr. P. Philips Co., 115 Fla. 472, 155 So. 661; Fancher v. Ramsey,121 Fla. 631, 164 So. 688; Barnett v. Slaughter, 123 Fla. 237,166 So. 580, and Ivey v. So. States Power Co., 128 Fla. 345,174 So. 834. See also in this connection Wilbur v. Hampton,128 Fla. 256, 174 So. 741. After a study of the rules laid down in the two cases cited by defendants in error, and the subsequent…
-
Wilbur v. Hampton, 128 Fla. 256 (Fla. 1937)…ent cause of action stated in a former pleading is whether the same evidence, unobjected to, sustain the substantial averments of both pleadings. See also to similar effect, Courtright v. Tunnicliffe, 104 Fla. 720, 140 So. 777; Barnett v. Slaughter, 166 So. 580, 123 Fla. 237. These authorities as I understand them sustain the position I have taken and call for an affirmance of the final judgment of the trial court dismissing the cause. The view I have taken of the case makes it unnecessary for us to consi…
-
First Prudential Dev. Corp. v. Hosp. Mortg. Grp., 390 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…van v. McMillan, 8 So. 450, 457, 26 Fla. 543 (1890), and such actions were cognizable before the breaching promisor’s performance date, where the breach was unequivocal. Slaughter v. Barnett, 154 So. 134, 114 Fla. 352 (1934), aff’d on other grounds, 166 So. 580, 123 Fla. 237 (1936); Hall v. Northern & Southern Co., 46 So. 178, 55 Fla. 235 (1908); Mori v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America, 380 So. 2d 461, 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Generally, substantial performance of all conditions precedent is required…
Authorities Cited
- Livingston v. Malever, 103 Fla. 200 (Fla. 1931)
- Slaughter v. Gordon J. Barnett. (Two Cases.), 114 Fla. 352 (Fla. 1934)