Beymer-Mann Co. v. Cross-Country Truck Service, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Beymer-Mann Co. v. Cross-Country Truck Service, Inc.

245 So. 2d 281, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6894

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 12, 1971

DocketNo. 70-603

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 So. 2d 281 (Beymer-Mann Co. v. Cross-Country Truck Service, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beymer-Mann Co. v. Cross-Country Truck Service, Inc., 245 So. 2d 281, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6894 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

MANN, Judge.

This appeal is from an order dismissing with prejudice a complaint alleging that Beymer-Mann’s agent contracted with Cross-Country, which it alleges is a “motor carrier or transportation broker,” for the transportation of fruit and that Cross-Country failed to deliver. The case was poorly pleaded by prior counsel, but should have survived motion to dismiss. Appellees claim that no privity is shown between Beymer-Mann and Cross-Country. This is not so, Beymer-Mann alleges that Jones, not a party, acted as its agent, and as such contracted with Cross-Country. Cross-Country argues that it is only a broker in any event, and hence not liable, but the amended complaint describes it, at least alternatively, as a carrier.

If there are other parties which need to be added, Rules 1.210 and 1.250, 30 F.S.A. are available to get into this action those who belong in it and get the matter settled. We can readily understand how the able trial judge was misled by the pleadings.

Reversed and remanded.

PIERCE, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.

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

MANN, Judge.

This appeal is from an order dismissing with prejudice a complaint alleging that Beymer-Mann’s agent contracted with Cross-Country, which it alleges is a “motor carrier or transportation broker,” for the transportation of fruit and that Cross-Country failed to deliver. The case was poorly pleaded by prior counsel, but should have survived motion to dismiss. Appellees claim that no privity is shown between Beymer-Mann and Cross-Country. This is not so, Beymer-Mann alleges that Jones, not a party, acted as its agent, and as such contracted with Cross-Country. Cross-Country argues that it is only a broker in any event, and hence not liable, but the amended complaint describes it, at least alternatively, as a carrier.

If there are other parties which need to be added, Rules 1.210 and 1.250, 30 F.S.A. are available to get into this action those who belong in it and get the matter settled. We can readily understand how the able trial judge was misled by the pleadings.

Reversed and remanded.

PIERCE, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 So. 2d 281, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beymer-mann-co-v-cross-country-truck-service-inc-fladistctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack