Harbour Tower Development Corp. v. Seaboard Equipment Co.

179 So. 2d 405, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 3775
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 2, 1965
DocketNo. 65-241
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 179 So. 2d 405 (Harbour Tower Development Corp. v. Seaboard Equipment 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
Harbour Tower Development Corp. v. Seaboard Equipment Co., 179 So. 2d 405, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 3775 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Opinion

CARROLL, Judge.

This is an appeal by a defendant from a judgment entered on default, in a replevin action. The complaint alleged sale of merchandise under retain title contract and an unpaid balance in default. Plaintiff sought repossession, damages for wrongful detention and attorney fees. On failure of the defendant to respond to personal service, default was entered. At a subsequent hearing without notice to defendant plaintiff submitted affidavit proof of damages and the judgment appealed from was entered, which recited plaintiff had retaken the property and awarded damages.

Appellant contends (1) it was error to assess damages and enter judgment without notice to the defendant and an opportunity to be heard on damages, (2) that an incorrect measure of damages was employed, and (3) that there was no basis in law for allowance of attorney’s fees. The appellee has not favored this court with a brief.

As the damages involved were unliquidated, the defendant against whom a default had been entered for failure to' answer was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard on the trial of the issues: relating to damages. See Moore v. Boyd, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 427; Pan American World Airways v. Gregory, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 669. Appellant correctly contends: the measure of damages was not the price of the goods or expense of the plaintiff in connection with the sale. As to the measure of damages see 28 Fla.Jur., Replevin,. § 41. Appellant’s contention regarding allowance of plaintiff’s attorney fees is without merit. The sale contract contained sufficient provision for them. See 28 Fla.. Jur., Replevin § 42.

Accordingly the judgment appealed from-is reversed and the cause is remanded for new trial on damages upon notice to defendant.

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

Related

Payne v. Dewitt
1999 OK 93 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1999)
McGarvin-Moberly Construction Co. v. Welden
897 P.2d 1310 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1995)
Stern v. Commercial Construction Corp.
268 So. 2d 549 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)
Arnold v. Stevenson
244 So. 2d 549 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)
Osceola Farms Co. v. Sanchez
238 So. 2d 477 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)
Winky's, Inc. v. Francis
229 So. 2d 903 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
179 So. 2d 405, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 3775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harbour-tower-development-corp-v-seaboard-equipment-co-fladistctapp-1965.