JAMES W. HALL AND LUCIUS M. MERRITT, PARTNERS, AS J. W. HALL & CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM PENNY, 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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court's decision allowing the defendant to set off damages for an allegedly wrongful sale of lumber. The court held that the defendant could only set off the proceeds of the actual sale at Indianola under a plea for money had and received, not the estimated value of the cargo at Pensacola, which would require a separate tort action.
The defendant could only set off the actual proceeds of the sale at Indianola under a plea for money had and received. The estimated value of the cargo at Pensacola is not a proper subject of set-off in this action; if the defendant believes it suffered a tort, it must bring a separate action for trover or an action on the case.
“Defendant could have beeix entitled to set-off the amount ^allowed by the court in this case only upon one hypothesis, viz : That plaintiff's conduct was of such character as gave Mm a right of action in which the measure of his damage was the value of this lumber at Pensacola. If defendant has any right of action in this mattei', his remedy is either an action on the case for a wrongful sale or trover for a conversion. This is not the proper subject matter of a set-off”
Establishes that tort damages are not proper subjects of set-off and require separate actions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs (J. W. Hall & Co.) brought an action against defendant Penny. The defendant sought to set off damages allegedly caused by plaintiff's wrong…
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 Action On The Case cases and more on FLexlaw
delivered the opinion of the court.
Defendant could have beeix entitled to set-off the amount ^allowed by the court in this case only upon one hypothesis, viz : That plaintiff’s conduct was of such character as gave Mm a right of action in which the measure of his damage was the value of this lumber at Pensacola. If defendant has any right of action in this mattei’, his remedy is either an action on the case for a wrongful sale or trover for a conversion. This is not the proper subject matter of a set-off, and the evidence to establish the tort was inadmissible under a plea of set-off of money had and received, or moneys due for goods sold and delivered. In this action defendant may have waived the tort, and under his plea of set-off for moneys had and received he may have perhaps been entitled to set-off the proceeds of sale at Indianola. 2 Greenlf. Ev., 117, 120; 5 Pick., 285 ; 10 Pick., 161; 3 Gray, 260; 7 Cush., 442 ; 5 Met., 73. This sum he might have recovered in an action of assumpsit, and we can see no reason why he may not have pleaded it as a set-off. If he does not desire to accept this sale as the measure of his damage, then he must *623bring such independent action as he thinks appropriate. Had this case actually gone to a jury, the court must have so instructed them as to the law. A verdict of the jury corresponding with the conclusion of the court as to the damages, must have been set aside as ■ contrary to the law of the case. The law as applied to the issues and the evidence* did not justify the allowance of the estimated value of the cargo at Pensacola.
Even in those exceptional cases where the defendant can avail himself by way of set-off of acts of non-feasance or'misfeasance of the plaintiff, such a defence does not authorize the court to certify a sum as due by plaintiff to the defendant. Wat. on Set-off, 168.
The action of the court was not in accordance with the law applicable to the facts and pleadings. As to the other matters discussed, which involve a consideration of the facts, we deem it proper to say nothing, as the case must again go to a jury.
Judgment reversed and new trial awarded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Griffing Bros. Co. v. Winfield, 53 Fla. 589 (Fla. 1907)…o the declaration, and alleged dam [*595] age growing, not out of breach of any contract, but out of tort. Unliquidated damages resulting from a tort cannot be made available as a set-off in an action for breach of a written contract. Hall v. Penny, 13 Fla. 621. A motion to strike the objectionable features of the plea was the proper way to remedy it, as the plea otherwise tendered a proper defense; a demurrer could not reach simply the defective parts of the plea, but would stand or fall as the plea was g…
-
Moulie v. Hughes, 28 Fla. 617 (Fla. 1891)
-
Bates v. Lanier, 75 Fla. 79 (Fla. 1918)…a. 153, 47 South. Rep. 937. But where a tort as for the conversion of money may be waived and a suit brought on an implied promise to pay a definite sum of money, it may be a proper matter for a set-off in an action eso contractu. See Hall v. Penny, 13 Fla. 621; Tidewater Quarry Co. v. Scott, 105 Va. 160, 52 S. E. Rep. 835, 8 Ann. Cas. 736. In this suit to forecolse a mortgage the defendant by answer sets up a tort, i. e. the conversion of money, in which the defendant may have a special if not an absolut…