FARRIS & COMPANY
v.
THE WILLIAM SCHLUDERBERG, T. J. KURDLE COMPANY
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 Florida corporation sold boned beef to a Maryland corporation under a C.A.F. (Cost and Freight) contract. When the shipment arrived in Baltimore, part of it was spoiled. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict for the buyer, holding that disputed issues about the contract's terms, the shipper's obligations, and compliance with trade custom required a jury determination rather than directed verdict.
The court held that because multiple material issues were in dispute—including the date of shipment, pre-cooling of the car, whether the meat contained old cuts contrary to contract terms, and whether the plain words of the contract or custom of the trade governed—it was competent to have proof on these matters, and a directed verdict was improper. The jury verdict for the buyer was proper.
“The contract appears to have been a Maryland one, governed by the law of that State and might have been sued on in either Maryland or Florida but since the action was brought in the latter State, the law of the forum governs as to procedure.”
Establishes the choice of law rule: Maryland law governs the contract's substance, but Florida procedure applies as the forum state.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFarris & Company, a Florida corporation, sold and shipped one carload of boned beef to The William Schluderberg, T. J. Kurdle Company, a Maryland corp…
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 Law Of The Forum cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, a Florida corporation, sold and shipped to Respondent, a Maryland Corporation, one car load of boned beef. The shipment was consigned under C. A. F. Contract to petitioner at Baltimore, Maryland, *463with draft on a Baltimore bank and bill of lading attached. The draft was paid on presentation and the bill of lading delivered.
The car was shipped from Jacksonville, Florida, October 17thj arrived at destination October 20th, and remained on the siding until October 22. When opened on the latter date in the presence of inspectors, a part of the shipment was found to be unfit for consumption and was destroyed, a part was salvaged by pickling, and the balance found to be good.
Respondent made demand on petitioner to be reimbursed for the spoiled meat and the cost of salvaging that which was pickled but petitioner denied liability and respondent brought an action against petitioner in the Civil Court of Record in Duval County to recover the sum claimed. The trial resulted in a verdict for respondent for the full amount claimed. Motion's for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict were denied and judgment was entered for respondent which was on appeal affirmed by the Circuit Court. That judgment is here for review on certiorari.
The real question presented is whether or not the trial court should have directed a verdict for petitioner at the conclusion of the evidence.
The contract appears to have been a Maryland one, governed by the law of that State and might have been sued on' in either Maryland or Florida but since the action was brought in the latter State, the law of the forum governs as to procedure. The contract was executed in Maryland, the meat was consigned to Baltimore and delivery was made there, consignment having been made there to petitioner.
Petitioner relies on his plea of custom of the trade when shipping under C. A. F. Contract, which means that the consideration paid covered cost and freight to destination. *464The cleavage between petitioner and respondent goes to the elements of a C. A. F. Contract as related to the custom of the trade and the obligations imposed thereby on the parties.
The obligation's or points in dispute related to date of shipment, pre-cooling of the car when packed, whether it contained “old cuts” contrary to contract and whether or not the plain words of the contract rather than the custom of the trade did not govern.
Since all these points were in dispute, it was competent to have proof as to them. The evidence has been examined and is found to be in conflict but it does not appear that the essential requirements of law were not followed. The ultimate question is one of proof and a discussion of that would serve no useful purpose.
It follows that the writ of certiorari is quashed.
It is so ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Chapman, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Whitfield and Brown not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Celotex Corp. v. Carmella Meehan, 523 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1988)…a cause of action has arisen is made in accordance with the law of this state. Meehan, 466 So. 2d at 1101 (citing Colhoun v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 265 So. 2d 18 (Fla. [*145] 1972); Farris & Co. v. William Schluderberg, T.J. Kurdle Co., 141 Fla. 462,193 So. 429 (1940); Pledger v. Burnup & Sims, Inc., 432 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), review denied, 446 So. 2d 99 (Fla.1984)). In construing section 95.10, the district court reasoned that a cause of action in tort arises in the jurisdiction where the last…
-
Carmella Meehan v. The Celotex Corp., 466 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…d 99 (Fla.1984), the determination of where a “cause of action arose” is made in accordance with the law of the forum state, (here Florida), Colhoun, 265 So. 2d 18; Pledger, 432 So. 2d 1323, see Farris & Co. v. William Schluderberg, T.J. Kurdle Co., 141 Fla. 462, 193 So. 429 (1940), rather than New York, the state apparently deemed by the trial court to [*1102] have the most significant relationship to the occurrence and to the parties.1 Under the thus applicable Florida law, a cause of action in tort “ari…
-
Farris & Co. v. The William Schludersberg, 142 Fla. 765 (Fla. 1940)
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