Industrial Medicine Pub. Co. v. Colonial Press of Miami, Inc.

181 So. 2d 19
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 7, 1965
Docket65-652
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 181 So. 2d 19 (Industrial Medicine Pub. Co. v. Colonial Press of Miami, 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
Industrial Medicine Pub. Co. v. Colonial Press of Miami, Inc., 181 So. 2d 19 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Opinion

181 So.2d 19 (1965)

INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE PUBLISHING COMPANY, Inc., an Illinois corporation, Appellant,
v.
COLONIAL PRESS OF MIAMI, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 65-652.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

December 7, 1965.
Rehearing Denied January 6, 1966.

*20 Brunstetter & Popper, Miami, for appellant.

Myers, Heiman & Kaplan and Allen Kornblum, Miami, for appellee.

Before TILLMAN PEARSON, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on interlocutory appeal from the chancellor's order denying defendant's motion to dismiss the "Supplemental Amended Complaint" and permitting the plaintiff, appellee, to amend the "supplemental amended complaint" by striking the word "supplemental" and adding the word "second." The order also allowed the plaintiff to amend his pleading so that it would designate the alleged contract, upon which suit was brought, as an oral contract.

The appellant contends that the pleading failed to state a cause of action because the plaintiff failed to allege the existence of a contract.

In contract actions, the complaint must allege the execution of the contract, the obligation thereby assumed, and the breach. Cerniglia v. Davison Chemical Co., Fla.App. 1962, 145 So.2d 254. The pleading before us meets that test.

If a defendant has no sure knowledge of the exact oral contract which is allegedly the basis for the plaintiff's cause of action, he may file a motion for a more definite statement. Rule 1.11(e), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A. See Patton v. Carlson, Fla.App. 1961, 132 So.2d 793.

Inasmuch as no error has been shown, the order appealed is affirmed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Townsend Contracting v. JENSEN CIV. CONST.
728 So. 2d 297 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Nautica International, Inc. v. Intermarine USA, L.P.
5 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (S.D. Florida, 1998)
Mullray v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A.
638 So. 2d 199 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Carole Korn Interiors, Inc. v. Goudie
573 So. 2d 923 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Breakers of Fort Walton Beach Condominiums, Inc. v. ATLANTIC BEACH MGMT., INC.
552 So. 2d 274 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Lawyers' Title Services, Inc. v. Dade Savings & Loan Ass'n
487 So. 2d 48 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Perry v. Cosgrove
464 So. 2d 664 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
181 So. 2d 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/industrial-medicine-pub-co-v-colonial-press-of-miami-inc-fladistctapp-1965.