HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
v.
JOHN B. SUTTON
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.
Hillsborough County sued to recover the balance owed under a contract for legal services from John B. Sutton after terminating his employment without cause. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the county, holding that the trial judge properly rendered judgment based on undisputed material facts disclosed at a pre-trial conference.
The trial judge was justified in rendering judgment because the material facts were undisputed and the controversy involved only the legal effect of those facts. The court properly excluded testimony about commissioners' understanding of the contract being made under a statute later held unconstitutional, as parties to a contract are conclusively presumed to act under the valid statute when a contract is entered pursuant to both valid and invalid statutes.
“If the conference progresses to the point of eliminating all questions of fact then the court may give judgment according to law on the facts before him.”
Establishes that a trial judge may render judgment at pre-trial conference when all factual disputes are resolved and only legal questions remain.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn January 1937, Hillsborough County employed Sutton as its attorney pursuant to a two-year statutory contract (Chapter 11911, Acts of 1927). In June …
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 Pretrial Conference cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is here on writ of error to review a judgment for plaintiff.
The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover the balance due under a contract to render legal services to the defendant county.
The county in January, 1937, by resolution of the board of county commissioners employed plaintiff. The law fixed the period of the plaintiff’s contract to two years. Chapter 11911, Acts of 1927. In June, 1937, the county discontinued plaintiff’s services without cause. There were pleas of payment and never promised as alleged. A pre-trial conference was held *603(as authorized under Supreme Court rule in Hills-borough County).
The attorneys for the parties appeared and submitted certified copies of resolutions by the board of county commissioners. These documents substantiated the declaration. At the conclusion of the conference, plaintiff was awarded judgment. Motion for new trial was denied and writ of error sued out.
Was the court justified in rendering final judgment in this fashion? It appeared to be the view of the trial judge that the material facts were undisputed and the controversy was with regard to the legal effect of the facts. The county admitted the employment, discharge and nonpayment subsequent to discharge. The county wished to have the commissioners testify that it was their understanding that the employment was made pursuant to a statute subsequently held unconstitutional. Chapter 16461, Acts of 1933. State v. Culbreath, 128 Fla. 210, 174 So. 422. The agreement was free of ambiguity and the court properly held the proffered testimony inadmissible. When a contract is entered into in pursuance to a valid and an invalid statute the parties are conclusively presumed to be acting under the valid statute.
The purpose of a pre-trial is to-simplify the issue. If the conference progresses to the point of eliminating all questions of fact then the court may give judgment according to law on the facts before him. In this case the declaration alleged a contract for a stipulated sum of $5000.00 annually. The pre-trial conference disclosed the making of the contract and the breach without cause. It is true the resolution which evidenced the contract did not fix the amount of salary. The plaintiff declared that it was $5000.00 *604annually. The question then arises did either plea put such allegation in issue? Obviously the plea of payment did not. The plea of never promised operated to deny the execution of the contract but not the contents of same. Rule 25, Florida Practice by Arnow. Crandall’s Florida Common Law Practice, Sec. 157.
The trial judge was of the opinion that the action was special assumpsit and not for the emoluments of an office. In this position he was correct. We have carefully considered all other questions presented and fail to find reversible error.
BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, TERRELL, BUFORD, CHAPMAN, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Roberts v. Braynon, 90 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 1956)…oped at the pretrial conference, whereupon the trial judge, who was convinced that no genuine factual issue remained, entered judgment for the defendant.. The same procedure was presented to us earlier in Hillsborough County v. Sutton, 150 Fla. 601, 8 So. 2d 401, 402, wherein we stated in part: “The purpose of a pretrial is to simplify the issue. If the conference progresses to the point of eliminating all questions of fact, then the court may give judgment according to the law on the facts before him.” S…
-
Bess v. 17545 Collins Ave., Inc., 98 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1957)…dgment on his own motion, in each case we observed that such procedure should be employed with an abundance. [*492] of .caution. Roberts v. Braynon, Fla.1956, 90 So. 2d 623, and cases therein cited. As we said in Hillsborough County v. Sutton, 1942, 150 Fla. 601, 8 So. 2d 401, 402, “ * * *. If the conference (pretrial) progresses to the point of eliminating all questions of fact then the court may give judgment according to the law on the facts before him. * * ” In the case before us. we are not of the op…
-
Marsh v. Sarasota Cnty., 97 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)…ence. We find no impropriety in the entry of a judgment by the chancellor at any time in the proceeding when it clearly appears that upon all questions of fact before him the court may give judgment as a matter of law. Hillsborough County v. Sutton, 150 Fla. 601, 8 So. 2d 401; Manning v. Clark, Fla., 71 So. 2d 508; Anderson v. Maddox, Fla., 65 So. 2d 299. The court below found that as a matter of law the land was not available for homesteading by veterans after March 7, 1949, by virtue of the aforesaid res…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Culbreath, 128 Fla. 210 (Fla. 1937)