Clutter Construction Co. v. Naples Builders Supply Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Clutter Construction Co. v. Naples Builders Supply Co.

166 So. 2d 813

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 18, 1964

DocketNo. 64-137

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 166 So. 2d 813 (Clutter Construction Co. v. Naples Builders Supply Co.) 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

Clutter Construction Co. v. Naples Builders Supply Co., 166 So. 2d 813 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Clutter Construction Company, Inc., was sued for goods sold. The complaint annexed a fully itemized statement of the account. For its answer the defendant plead a general denial, and added “never was indebted.” At the trial the defendant attempted to cross examine plaintiff’s witness as to the quality of the goods delivered. The-court sustained plaintiff’s objection upon the basis that there was no pleading raising an issue of set-off for inferior goods. [814]*814This ruling was repeated when defendant attempted to offer evidence of a dispute between the parties as to “strength of the concrete delivered.”

These rulings are the basis for defendant’s appeal from the final judgment for plaintiff. We find that no error has been shown because Rule 1.11(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., directs that “Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading * * * shall be asserted in the responsive pleading * * * except” (here follows seven exceptions each inapplicable here).

The plaintiff, Naples Builders Supply Co., Inc., cross assigns error upon the court’s failure to direct the jury to assess interest. It is true that the plaintiff did “ask the court” to include interest but at the time of its motion for directed verdict, it had offered no evidence as to interest. Therefore, the court did not err in failing to compute and include the interest claimed. Cf., Shoup v. Waits, 91 Fla. 378, 107 So. 769.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Clutter Construction Company, Inc., was sued for goods sold. The complaint annexed a fully itemized statement of the account. For its answer the defendant plead a general denial, and added “never was indebted.” At the trial the defendant attempted to cross examine plaintiff’s witness as to the quality of the goods delivered. The-court sustained plaintiff’s objection upon the basis that there was no pleading raising an issue of set-off for inferior goods. [814]*814This ruling was repeated when defendant attempted to offer evidence of a dispute between the parties as to “strength of the concrete delivered.”

These rulings are the basis for defendant’s appeal from the final judgment for plaintiff. We find that no error has been shown because Rule 1.11(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., directs that “Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading * * * shall be asserted in the responsive pleading * * * except” (here follows seven exceptions each inapplicable here).

The plaintiff, Naples Builders Supply Co., Inc., cross assigns error upon the court’s failure to direct the jury to assess interest. It is true that the plaintiff did “ask the court” to include interest but at the time of its motion for directed verdict, it had offered no evidence as to interest. Therefore, the court did not err in failing to compute and include the interest claimed. Cf., Shoup v. Waits, 91 Fla. 378, 107 So. 769.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 So. 2d 813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clutter-construction-co-v-naples-builders-supply-co-fladistctapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack