Acolite Sign Co. v. Kay

8 Fla. Supp. 161

This text of 8 Fla. Supp. 161 (Acolite Sign Co. v. Kay) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Acolite Sign Co. v. Kay, 8 Fla. Supp. 161 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1955).

Opinion

PAT CANNON, Circuit Judge.

The record on appeal, briefs and arguments of counsel having been studied and considered, the court finds that the issue on appeal is—

Must a complaint seeking judgment in damages for goods sold and delivered and not paid for have attached to it not only-invoice descriptions, but descriptions of the type and amount of goods actually sold and delivered, in order to state a cause of action or comply with the 1954 rules of civil procedure?

Appellant cites Moore v. Boyd (Fla.), 62 So. 2d 427, in support of his contention that a detailed description of the actual goods in question must be attached to the complaint. However, Moore v. Boyd arose under the prior rules of procedure and the specific requirement for attaching such a description of goods has been eliminated in the 1954 rules of civil procedure, and therefore, is no longer required.

It otherwise appearing that the procedure followed in the civil court of récord was correct, its judgment is affirmed in every respect.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Moore v. Boyd
62 So. 2d 427 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Fla. Supp. 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acolite-sign-co-v-kay-flacirct11mia-1955.