Craft v. Smith
| Decision Date | 17 February 1903 |
| Citation | 33 So. 996,45 Fla. 222 |
| Parties | CRAFT et al. v. SMITH et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, De Soto County; Barron Phillips, Judge.
Action by Chester H. Smith and E. M. Watts against Herbert M. Craft and others. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants bring error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. It is reversible error to strike a plea substantially complete as a plea of performance of the conditions of the bond upon which the declaration is based.
2. A motion to quash a forthcoming bond in an action upon such bond is a proceeding unknown to our practice, and is properly denied.
COUNSEL C. W. Forrester (John C. White, on the brief) for plaintiffs in error.
Palmer & Hopkins, for defendants in error.
The defendants in error brought an action of debt, and recovered a judgment upon a forthcoming bond given by Herbert M. Craft as principal, and S. S. Avant and J. N. Hollingsworth, as sureties, in an attachment proceeding ancillary to the enforcement in equity of a chattel mortgage lien. The bond as declared on, is conditioned as follows: 'Whereas, the said Smith & Watts have commenced a proceeding by attachment in aid of a mortgage foreclosure, and the sheriff of said county, by virtue of a writ of attachment in said cause issued, has levied upon the stock of goods, wares, and merchandise belonging to the said Herbert M. Craft, and located in a storehouse on Oak street, in the town of Arcadia: Now, if the said Herbert M. Craft shall have said stock of goods, wares, and merchandise forthcoming to answer any order made in pursuance of said attachment proceedings at any time when so required, then this bond shall be void; else to remain in full force and virtue.'
The declaration alleged that a final decree had been rendered for the amount of the mortgage debt, and that the said Craft was ordered to make return of said goods, wares, and merchandise to one Charles W. Forrester, special master in chancery.
A demurrer to the declaration was overruled, and a motion to quash the bond sued on was denied, and the defendants were allowed until the next day to plead.
Among the pleas properly verified and duly filed was one in this language (omitting the exhibit): ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Crosby
...See Parkhurst v. Stone, 36 Fla. 456, 18 So. 594, and authorities there cited; Camp Bros. v. Hall, 39 Fla. 535, 22 So. 792; Craft v. Smith, 45 Fla. 222, 33 So. 996; 20 Ency. Pl. & Pr., 988. As to compulsory amendment of pleadings, we held in Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. Scarborough (deci......
-
Southern Home Ins. Co. v. Putnal
... ... John Ryan Co., 35 Fla. 259, 17 So. 73; ... Camp v. Hall, 39 Fla. 535, 22 So. 792; Little v ... Bradley, 43 Fla. 402, 31 So. 342; Craft v ... Smith, 45 Fla. 222, 33 So. 996; Hubbard v ... Anderson, 50 Fla. 219, 39 So. 107; concurring opinion in ... Atlantic Coast Line R. Co ... ...
-
Ray v. Williams
... ... where the pleading as a whole, or any part of it, is wholly ... irrelevant, or is for any reason improper. See Craft v ... Smith, 45 Fla. 222, 33 So. 996; State ex rel. W. H ... Ellis, Attorney General, v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., ... 53 Fla. 711, 44 So ... ...
-
Hanley v. Bullard
...irrelevant to the cause or improper and not merely bad for defective statement, there was no error in striking it. See Craft v. Smith, 45 Fla. 222, 33 So. 996; Parkhurst v. Stone, 36 Fla. 456, 18 So. Russ v. Mitchell, 11 Fla. 80; Hammond v. A. Vetsburg Co., 56 Fla. 369, 48 So. 419; Fidelity......