Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Marianna Lime Products Co.

Supreme Court of Florida

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Marianna Lime Products Co.

158 So. 115, 117 Fla. 327, 1934 Fla. LEXIS 1261

DecidedNovember 30, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 158 So. 115 (Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Marianna Lime Products Co.) 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

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Marianna Lime Products Co., 158 So. 115, 117 Fla. 327, 1934 Fla. LEXIS 1261 (Fla. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This writ of error was taken to a judgment for the' defendant in an action to¡ recover on demur-rage charges for cars of the plaintiff which were loaded, held a number of days and then unloaded by the defendant. The rules on demurrage adopted by the State authority do not appear to cover demurrage for the particular facts as to loading and unloading cars shown in this case; but there were common counts in the amended declaration to which pleas were filed. The charges of the court contained statements of law that had reference to issues on counts, of the declaration respecting claims of the plaintiff under demur-rage rules which rules do not appear applicable to the facts shown.

The trial proceedings should have been upon the issues under the common counts of the declaration, without confusing proceedings on inappropriate counts.

Reversed for appropriate proceedings.

*328 Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

This writ of error was taken to a judgment for the' defendant in an action to¡ recover on demur-rage charges for cars of the plaintiff which were loaded, held a number of days and then unloaded by the defendant. The rules on demurrage adopted by the State authority do not appear to cover demurrage for the particular facts as to loading and unloading cars shown in this case; but there were common counts in the amended declaration to which pleas were filed. The charges of the court contained statements of law that had reference to issues on counts, of the declaration respecting claims of the plaintiff under demur-rage rules which rules do not appear applicable to the facts shown.

The trial proceedings should have been upon the issues under the common counts of the declaration, without confusing proceedings on inappropriate counts.

Reversed for appropriate proceedings.

*328 Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 So. 115, 117 Fla. 327, 1934 Fla. LEXIS 1261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louisville-nashville-railroad-v-marianna-lime-products-co-fla-1934.