Daniel v. Siegel-Cooper Co.

Citations

• 54 Fla. 265

Syllabus

<p>1. Where the special count of a declaration alleges certain negotiations by telegram between the plaintiff in New York, and defendants, in Miami, Florida, for the purchase of a lot of furniture by the latter of the former, and these negotiations terminate in the sending by the plaintiff to the defendants of the following telegram: “Will ship goods selected by Davidson for you at contract prices f. o. b. Miami, Florida, &c. wire quick if understood and satisfactory;” to which telegram the following reply was sent by defendants: “I think we understand each other. Let the goods come on. Notify Mr. Davidson,” the defendants cannot insist on demurrer to this special count that the goods w.ere sold at any other than “contract prices,” because it appears that other prices had been offered by the defendants, which were not accepted by the plaintiff.</p> <p>2. Where a single assigment of error attacks the ruling of the circuit judge striking four separate pleas, and this court finds that the circuit judge acted properly in striking one of those pleas, it will not go further in considering the single assignment of error.</p> <p>3. A plea which sets up no fact, but simply presents defendant’s construction of the contract in question, presents no defense.</p> <p>4. An assignment of error based on the ruling of the court admitting in evidence copies of telegrams, when the originals were not produced or accounted for, presents no reversible error, when the record shows that the defendant admitted in open court that the copies admitted were true copies of the originals.</p> <p>5. The evidence examined and found sufficient to sustain the judgment below.</p>