Moore v. Purvis

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moore v. Purvis

194 So. 2d 67

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 10, 1967

DocketNo. 66-231

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 194 So. 2d 67 (Moore v. Purvis) 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

Moore v. Purvis, 194 So. 2d 67 (Fla. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of a final judgment dismissing his amended complaint. The complaint was in three counts. Counts one and two urged a breach of contract and negligent performance of contract, respectively. The order of dismissal must be affirmed as to these counts upon the rule stated in Sickler v. Indian River Abstract & Guaranty Co., 142 Fla. 528, 195 So. 195 (1940). Appellant’s count three charges fraud, but no facts to support fraud were alleged. See Rule 1.9(b), Fla.R.Civ.P., 30 F.S.A. The allegations were entirely by the conclusion of the pleader.

Appellant’s second point, which urges that he should have been allowed to file another amended complaint, is without merit. See Matson v. Tip Top Grocery Co., 151 Fla. 247, 9 So.2d 366, 368 (1942).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of a final judgment dismissing his amended complaint. The complaint was in three counts. Counts one and two urged a breach of contract and negligent performance of contract, respectively. The order of dismissal must be affirmed as to these counts upon the rule stated in Sickler v. Indian River Abstract & Guaranty Co., 142 Fla. 528, 195 So. 195 (1940). Appellant’s count three charges fraud, but no facts to support fraud were alleged. See Rule 1.9(b), Fla.R.Civ.P., 30 F.S.A. The allegations were entirely by the conclusion of the pleader.

Appellant’s second point, which urges that he should have been allowed to file another amended complaint, is without merit. See Matson v. Tip Top Grocery Co., 151 Fla. 247, 9 So.2d 366, 368 (1942).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 So. 2d 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-purvis-fladistctapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack