Walter v. Florida Savings Bank & Real Estate Exchange

Citations

• 20 Fla. 826

Syllabus

<p>1. When in an action upon a conti-act the defendant pleads that he “ did not promise as alleged,” and also jileads specially that the plaintiff contracted with him as an agent of another and not otherwise, and that plaintiff knew this fact at the time of contracting, such sjieeial plea is only a repetition of the general plea that the defendant did not promise as alleged.</p> <p>2. The overruling of plaintiff’s demurrer to such special jileas may, therefore, have been erroneous, but such ruling did not change the issues or affect the legal rights of the parties. Such pleas only encumbered the record.</p> <p>8. Where upon the trial of such cause a verdict is found for the defendant, but upon appeal the record does not show the testimony nor th(j.rulings of the court thereon, nor the charge of the court to the jury, nor any exceptions, this court cannot reverse the judgment on account of the overruling of the demurrer to the jileas, as it does not apjiear whether the court admitted improper testimony in behalf of defendants, nor indeed that the jilaintiff introduced any testimony in the case to snxijiort the declaration.</p>