ST. ANDREWS BAY LUMBER COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,

v.

MARK BERNARD, SOL BERNARD AND JACK BERNARD, CO-PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS AS BERNARD BROTHERS, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR

Citator

Cited By

• Etta C. Mann v. Etchells, 132 Fla. 409 (Fla. 1938)
  …v. Ziegfeld, supra, and the material allegations of the plea are sufficient in law and submits, if sustained by the evidence, a good defense to the action. See Sanford v. Abrams, 24 Fla. 181, 2 So. 373; Kline v. Eugene Berninghaus Co., 102 Fla. 362. 135 So. 837; Sendoya v. Chattanooga Brewing Co., 73 Fla. 648, 74 So. 801; Sapp v. Atlantic Natl. Bank of Jacksonville, 105 Fla. 507, 141 So. 605. Let us examine the facts offered in support of the plea. On page 9 of the transcript is a letter signed by the pla…
• Silva v. Robinson, 115 Fla. 830 (Fla. 1934)
  …v. Bazemore, 85 Fla. 164, 96 South. Rep. 297. The plea averred that the note was “without any good or valuable consideration therefor.” That averment, standing alone, was insufficient as a defense. See Kline v. Eugene Bernighaus Co., 102 Fla. 362, 135 South. Rep. 837. The facts connected with the transaction must show a want of consideration to support the general averment. Forbes v. Ft. Lauderdale Mercantile Co., 83 Fla. 66, 90 South. Rep. 821; Davis v. Am. Agr. Chem. Co., 87 Fla. 525, 100 South. Rep. 741; Wil…
• Brewer v. Northgate OF Orlando, Inc., 143 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
  …such a claim must be supported by a new contract, express or implied, between the same parties to the original agreement, and the last contract must be executed to have the effect of satisfaction. Kline v. Eugene Berninghaus Co., 1931, 102 Fla. 362, 135 So. 837; Sendoya v. Chattanooga Brewing Co., 1917, 73 Fla. 648, 74 So. 801. Whether there is an accord and satisfaction ordinarily involves a pure question of intention, which is as a rule a question of fact, but if the evidence creates no conflict concerni…