Consolidated Naval Stores Co. v. Mcneill
| Decision Date | 06 December 1910 |
| Citation | 60 Fla. 38,53 So. 843 |
| Parties | CONSOLIDATED NAVAL STORES CO. v. McNEILL. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Holmes County; J. Emmet Wolfe, Judge.
Action by J. S. McNeill against the Consolidated Naval Stores Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
In an action to recover for services rendered from August to December, it is not error, upon the question of the application of payments, to admit evidence that there was a continuing service, beginning in April.
On an issue as to whether a contract for the sale of lands was made, and possession was taken and labor was done on the lands for the purchasers in pursuance of the contract testimony as to what the alleged purchaser said he believed he could do in paying for the lands may be stricken, as being irrelevant.
Where the action is not on a letter, it is not error to admit the letter tending to show employment, though not a joint one, if otherwise relevant, on the ground that it is addressed to two persons, and only one of them brings the action.
Where there is evidence to sustain the verdict, and no error appears, the judgment will not be reversed on writ of error.
COUNSEL Blount & Blount & Carter, for plaintiff in error.
J. W Kehoe and H. L. Grace, for defendant in error.
The defendant in error brought an action against the Naval Stores Company for services 'from the 6th day of August, A. D 1908, until the 28th day of December, A. D. 1908, at $45 per month, making the sum total of $214.' Damages in $500 were claimed. There were pleas of payment, of set-off, and of never was indebted as to a part of the amount claimed. Judgment for the plaintiff was rendered for $216 and costs, and the defendant took writ of error.
At the trial the plaintiff was permitted over the objection of the defendant to testify as to his employment by the defendant beginning April 6th, and, as the claim is for services from August to December, the defendant contends that the admission of this testimony is error. The plaintiff sought to prove that his employment began April 6th and continued till December 28th, and that he had been paid for only four months of that time. It was not error to permit the beginning of the employment to be shown. The defendant claimed that it began August 28th, and had been fully paid for. It was permissible for the plaintiff to show his version of the employment; the conflict being for the jury to determine.
The defense was that the plaintiff, with another, had agreed to buy from the defendant the turpentine producing property on which the plaintiff worked during the first part of the period he claimed to have worked for the defendant, and that from April 6th to August 28th the plaintiff was working for himself, and not for the defendant.
On cross-examination the plaintiff testified that he ...
To continue reading
Request your trial