Langston v. National China Co.
| Decision Date | 07 April 1909 |
| Citation | 49 So. 155,57 Fla. 92 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | LANGSTON et al. v. NATIONAL CHINA CO. |
Headnotes Filed May 11, 1909.
In Banc. Error to Circuit Court, Wakulla County; John W. Malone Judge.
Action by the National China Company against J. I. Langston and M O. Strickland. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
In an action of assumpsit, it is not error to exclude a merely preliminary question as to whether or not the plaintiff prior to the execution of the contract, offered to defendants any verbal inducement to enter into the contract, where fraud is not pleaded, and where there is no indication as to the purpose of the preliminary question excluded.
COUNSEL J. A. Edmondson, for plaintiffs in error.
Francis B. Winthrop, for defendant in error.
The defendant in error brought an action in the circuit court for Wakulla county against the plaintiffs in error upon the common counts for money payable and for account stated. The copy of the cause of action, attached to the declaration as required by the statute, is a bill for baking power sold by the plaintiff to the defendants. Two of the pleas aver fraud on the part of the plaintiff in the sale of the baking powder, but do not state the ultimate facts upon which the fraud is predicated.
There was a plea of the general issue. The plaintiff recovered judgment, and the defendants took writ of error. The sufficiency of the pleas averring fraud does not appear to have been tested. At the trial the plaintiff proved a written order for the goods by the defendants and the shipment of the goods to defendants. The following question was thereafter propounded to the defendant J. I. Langston: 'Please state whether or not the plaintiff, prior to the execution by defendants of the contract to purchase from the plaintiff 500 cases of Cascade baking powder, offered to defendants any verbal inducement to enter into such contract.' The ruling of the court excluding this question is the only assignment of error argued here.
Where fraud is relied upon as a defense to an action upon a simple contract, rule 66 of the circuit court rules requires that it 'shall be specially pleaded.' In pleading fraud, the ultimate facts constituting the particular fraud should be stated with certainty and directness. See Mutual Loan & Building Association v. Price, 19 Fla. 127; 9 Ency. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forbes v. Ft. Lauderdale Mercantile Co.
... ... Heathcote v. Fairbanks, Morse ... & Co., 60 Fla. 97, 53 So. 950; Langston v. National ... China Co., 57 Fla. 92, 49 Sough. 155; McClinton v ... Chapin, 54 Fla. 510, 45 ... ...
-
Florida Life Ins. Co. v. Dillon
... ... will be held bad.' As we also held in Langston & ... Strickland v. National China Co., 57 Fla. 92, 49 So ... 155, 'in pleading fraud, the ... ...
-
Huffstetler v. Our Home Life Ins. Co.
... ... 643. See, also, Mutual Loan & ... Building Association v. Prince, 19 Fla. 127; ... Langston v. National Chine Co., 57 Fla. 92, 49 So ... 155; Heathcote v. Fairbanks, Morse & Co., 60 Fla ... ...
-
Thompson v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America
...Kalish, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 763; Florida Life Insurance Co. v. Dillon, 1912, 63 Fla. 140, 58 So. 643; Langston & Strickland v. National China Co., 1909, 57 Fla. 92, 49 So. 155. On a motion to dismiss for failure of the complaint to state a cause of action the motion for the purpose of d......