Mciver v. Croom
| Decision Date | 26 October 1910 |
| Citation | 60 Fla. 123,53 So. 545 |
| Parties | McIVER et al. v. CROOM. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Headnotes Filed December 6, 1910.
Error to Circuit Court, Marion county; W. S. Bullock, Judge.
Action by D. E. McIver and George McKay against Sallie Bell Croom. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
To authorize the striking out of a plea, it must be not only informal and bad, but it must be wholly irrelevant.
COUNSEL Davis & Martin, for plaintiffs in error.
H. M. Hampton, for defendant in error.
The plaintiffs in error, as plaintiffs below, sued the defendant in error, as defendant below, in the circuit court of Marion county. At the trial the jury returned a verdict for $67, for which judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendant, which sum being considerably less than the plaintiffs claimed in their suit, the plaintiffs moved for a new trial upon the ground that the verdict was not supported by the evidence and was contrary to the evidence. This motion was denied, and the plaintiffs below bring the case here for review by writ of error. The denial of the plaintiffs' motion to strike certain pleas of the defendant is assigned as error.
In the case of Hubbard v. Anderson, 50 Fla. 219, 39 So. 107, this court has announced the following rule to govern the striking out of pleas: 'To authorize the striking out of a plea, it must be not only informal and bad, but it must be wholly irrelevent.' We cannot say that the two pleas that the court below refused to strike out were wholly irrelevant, or that they did not present a legitimate issue in the case. This assignment, therefore, fails. There was evidence in the case on behalf on the defendant upon which the verdict returned by the jury could very well have been predicated; and, this being true, this court cannot disturb it, there being nothing shown to indicate that the jury were influenced by anything outside of the evidence in the case.
Finding no error, the judgment of the court below in said cause is hereby affirmed, at the cost of the plaintiffs in error.
WHITFIELD, C.J., not participating.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Randall v. Mickle
... ... 490, 56 So. 801; Burr v. Hull, 66 Fla. 20, 63 So ... 300) and that a plea must be wholly irrelevant to authorize ... striking thereof ( McIver v. Croom, 60 Fla. 123, 53 ... So. 545; St. Petersburg Novelty Works v. Battle, 66 ... Fla. 303, 63 So. 445; So. Turpentine Co. v ... ...
-
Batchelder v. Prestman
... ... 490, 56 So. 801; Burr v. Hull, 66 Fla. 20, 63 So ... 300), and that a plea must be wholly irrelevant to authorize ... striking thereof. McIver v. Croom, 60 Fla. 123, 53 ... So. 545; St. Petersburg Novelty Works v. Battle, 66 ... Fla. 303, 63 So. 445; Southern Home Ins. Co. v ... Putnal, ... ...
- Worley v. Johnson
-
Lovi v. North Shore Bank, s. 61-225
...if any of the allegations contained in said paragraphs are relevant the motion to strike should have been denied. See: Mc Iver & McKay v. Croom, 60 Fla. 123, 53 So. 545; Southern Turpentine Co. v. Douglass, 61 Fla. 424, 54 So. 385; St. Petersburg Novelty Works v. Battle, 66 Fla. 303, 63 So.......