Meadows v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 28 September 1955 |
| Citation | 82 So.2d 733 |
| Parties | Lewis MEADOWS et al., Appellants, v. Bill EDWARDS et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Walter A. Shelley, J. Compton French and Hull, Landis, Graham & French, Daytona Beach, for appellants.
Shepard & Dykes, Cocoa, for appellees.
The first count of appellant-plaintiff complaint filed November 13, 1952 (T.p.27) was held sufficient on a hearing of defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended second and third counts filed January 18, 1954 (T.96) and also a motion to strike the said amended second and third counts as 'sham pleadings' and for summary judgment. The Court granted each of these three motions and from the final judgment of dismissal 'with prejudice' plaintiffs appealed.
It is alleged that the appellants-plaintiffs originally entered into a contract with Bill Edwards, a subcontractor, to furnish labor and material on a United States government job; that when Edwards defaulted the plaintiffs went to Leifert Construction Co., the General Contractor, and informed it that unless 'Leifert' could be looked to for payment it would cease furnishing labor and material; that 'Leifert' urged the plaintiff to continue to furnish the labor and material and that plaintiffs could look to 'Leifert' for payment. Plaintiffs allege that they thereupon furnished labor and material in reliance on the promise of 'Leifert' and sues for the labor and material furnished in reliance on the oral contract with 'Leifert'.
The defendant 'Leifert' denies by affidavit any such agreement which plaintiffs' affidavits and deposition contradict to a substantial degree.
The test in ruling a motion to strike a pleading on a ground that it is 'sham' means false and not that it is shabby, as stated in 41 Am.Jur. p. 322, Pleading, par. 50:
In order to justify the striking of a pleading for being sham or false it must be so undoubtedly false as not to be subject to a genuine issue of fact. The motion should be tested by the same standards as a motion for a summary judgment in the following respects. Such procedure is a method for promptly disposing of actions in which there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the term 'genuine issue' is not meant to be necessarily confined to a pleading or paper issue. To use the language of Judge Cardozo, later Justice, made in reference to the law applicable to motions for summary judgment, 6 Moore's Federal Practice 2d 2028, to the effect that the very object of a motion for judgment because of sham pleadings 'is to separate what is formal or pretended in denial or averment from what is genuine or substantial, so that only the latter may subject a suitor to the burden of trial'. A motion to strike a pleading as false should not be granted under the circumstances when a motion for a directed verdict or a motion for a summary judgment could not properly be granted. If there is any substantial evidence to support the party against whom the motion is made, then the motion should be denied. A hearing on a motion to strike pleadings, or on a motion for summary judgment is not to try the issues, but to determine whether there are any genuine issues to be tried. Johnson v. Studstill, Fla., 71 So.2d 251
The Court of Appeals per Judge Minton, now Justice, in Burley v. Elgin, J. & E. Ry. Co., 7 Cir., 140 F.2d 488, 490, and quoted in 6 Moore's Federal Practice 2d 2105, held as follows:
And...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reyes v. Roush
...motion, not to determine an issue in the case, but rather to determine whether factually the pleading is a sham. See Meadows v. Edwards, 82 So.2d 733 (Fla.1955). I cannot recall ever seeing a case in which such an evidentiary hearing was actually held. Attorneys typically set these motions ......
-
Axelrod v. Califano, EE-88
...record that there is only a question of law as to whether the party should have judgment in accordance with the motion. Meadows v. Edwards, 82 So.2d 733 (Fla.1955); 30 Fla.Jur. Summary Judgment, § 2. However, summary judgment should be sparingly granted so as to not infringe on the constitu......
-
Schaal v. Race, 2482
...prerogative inherent in a court to strike out pleadings that are either sham or frivolous. * * *' In the case of Meadows v. Edwards, Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 733, 735, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Barns, 'In order to justify the striking of a pleading for being sham or false it mus......
-
Destiny Const. Co. v. Martin K. Eby Const.
...set up in bad faith and without color of fact. Ader v. Temple Ner Tamid, 339 So.2d 268, 270 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Accord Meadows v. Edwards, 82 So.2d 733 (Fla.1955); Sapienza v. Karland, Inc., 154 So.2d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). In other words, a plea is considered a sham when it is inherently ......
-
Motions to strike sham pleadings and summary judgment motions: is there a difference?
...See also St. John's Med. Plans, Inc. v. Physician Corp. of America, 711 So. 2d 1329, 1331 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1998). (5) Meadows v. Edwards, 82 So. 2d 733, 735 (Fla. 1955) ("In order to justify the striking of a pleading for being sham or false it must be shown to be so undoubtedly false as not......