Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Railway Co. v. Thomas
Citations
- 60 Fla. 412
Syllabus
<p>1. Actions ex contractu may be maintained only in accordance with the lawful rights and interests of the parties as they appear by the contract.</p> <p>2. Where the rights and interests of the parties are definitely and clearly stated the terms of the coiftract fairly interpreted should control, for it must be assumed that the intent of the parties is as it is distinctly and positively expressed by them. If the language used is ambiguous the real intent of the parties should be ascertained and it may be shown in an appropriate way when such showing is not inconsistent with the express terms and purpose of the contract.</p> <p>3. Even though a contract be in form joint in its obligations, if the real rights and interests of the obligees among themselves be several and not joint, actions may be maintained severally by the obligees as their rights and interests appear, when the express terms and purpose of the • contract are not in substance thereby violated or disregarded.</p> <p>4. In ascertaining the intention of the parties and indetermining whether the rights and interests of covenantees are in reality joint or several, the subject matter of the contract, the language used, the purpose designed, the consideration furnished and the circumstances that induced the making of the contract may be considered.</p> <p>5. Where the consideration furnished by the obligees is several and not joint the interests of the obligees may prima facie be regarded as several and not joint if other features of the contract do not clearly conflict.</p> <p>6. A covenant to locate a station and depot at a stated point on a railroad “that the interest of all parties may be best sub-served,” is not inconsistent with separate interests of the obligees, but it comports with the existence of distinct rights to maintain actions for the redress of injuries resulting proximately from a breach of tne covenant as the interests of the obligees under the contract may appear.</p> <p>7. The interests
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “[E]ven though Johnson previously pled guilty to a DUI charge arising out of an automobile collision, his subsequent conviction for assault in the first degree arising out of that same automobile collision did not constitute a double jeopardy violation.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Cockrell, Hocker, Parkhill, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.