Bloodworth v. A. H. & F. H. Lippincott

Citations

• 78 Fla. 261
• 82 So. 827

Syllabus

<p>1. When a declaration in an action for breach of a written contract for the purchase of goods and chattels contains no allegation -or allegations showing that such goods and chattels,, alleged to have been shipped by plaintiff to defendant, were in transit when destroyed by fire, á demurrer to the declaration upon th ground that the contract, cop>y of which is attached. thereto, provided that said goods and phattels were to be at vendor’s risk of damage or destruction while in transit to vendee’s freight depot, is properly overruled.</p> <p>3. It is npt the province 'o.f a demurrer to set out facts; it involves only such facts as are alleged in the pleading demurred to, and raises only questions of law as to the sufficiency of the pleading, which arise on the face thereof.</p> <p>3. When the buyer of personal property, under the terms of a written contract of purchase, must necessarily perform certain obligations before the seller can be required to carry out a particular obligation under the contract, it is not necessary for the seller, in an action iagainst the buyer for failure to carry out such obligations, to allege performance of such particular obligation on his part.</p> <p>4. Where the ruling of the lower court in striking more than one idea is attacked by 'one assignment of error, this court will go no- further in considering such assignment of error, if the lower court was correct in sustaining the motion to strike any one of the plqase.</p>