Hayman v. Mitchell

Supreme Court of Florida

Hayman v. Mitchell

107 So. 635, 91 Fla. 304

DecidedFebruary 23, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 107 So. 635 (Hayman v. Mitchell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hayman v. Mitchell, 107 So. 635, 91 Fla. 304 (Fla. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

— In an action by the payee on a retain title note given by the defendant for the balance of the purchase price of an automobile, the declaration alleged no damages sustained by the plaintiff, the court struck the pleas, including a plea of failure of consideration, and rendered judgment by default, and damages were assessed by a jury as “principal $625.00, interest $70.00, attorney’s fee $119.50, total $814.50.” Judgment for “the said sum of $814.50 as damages” was rendered and the defendant took writ of error. The amended second plea was not amenable to the motion to strike and the declaration contains a defective ad damnum clause.

Reversed for appropriate proceedings.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Brown, C. J., and Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur in the opinion.

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

Per Curiam.

— In an action by the payee on a retain title note given by the defendant for the balance of the purchase price of an automobile, the declaration alleged no damages sustained by the plaintiff, the court struck the pleas, including a plea of failure of consideration, and rendered judgment by default, and damages were assessed by a jury as “principal $625.00, interest $70.00, attorney’s fee $119.50, total $814.50.” Judgment for “the said sum of $814.50 as damages” was rendered and the defendant took writ of error. The amended second plea was not amenable to the motion to strike and the declaration contains a defective ad damnum clause.

Reversed for appropriate proceedings.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Brown, C. J., and Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur in the opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 So. 635, 91 Fla. 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayman-v-mitchell-fla-1926.