Peterson v. Oscar Daniels Co.

90 So. 621, 83 Fla. 29
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided January 19, 1922·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In an action for- personal injuries, judgment was rendered for the defendant on a demurrer to the declaration and plaintiff took writ .of error. The declaration is needlessly prolix, but as the allegations do not by repugnance- destroy each other, and as the declaration does not wholly fail to state a cause of action,- the demurrer should have been overruled. See Catts v. Henderson, 81 Fla. 138, 87 South. Rep. 313; Florida East [30]*30Coast Ry. Co. v. City of Miami, Fla. 80 Fla. 329, 86 South. Rep. 308. Admiralty is not involved. 254 U. S. 242.

Reversed.

All concur.

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

Peterson v. Oscar Daniels Co., 90 So. 621, 83 Fla. 29 (Fla. 1922).

90 So. 621 (Peterson v. Oscar Daniels Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. James
166 So. 813 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)
Gregg Corp. v. Burdine
129 So. 868 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Carlton v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.
116 So. 870 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1928)
Hawkins v. Shore Acres Properties
112 So. 61 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1927)
Yon v. Pinellas County Power Co.
112 So. 50 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1927)
McDonald v. Exchange Supply Co.
88 Fla. 80 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1924)
Pero v. Corley
100 So. 748 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1924)
Foster v. St. Johns Electric Co.
98 So. 75 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1923)
Boone v. Gay
94 So. 501 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1922)