Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Reinschmidt v. Crosby, (1929)

Court: Supreme Court of Florida Number:  Visitors: 7
Judges: BROWN, J. —
Attorneys: John S. Beard and John P. Stokes, for Plaintiffs in Error; E. C. Maxwell, Philip D. Beall and John M. Coe, for Defendants in Error.
Filed: Aug. 01, 1929
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This is a common law action for damages for trespass to real estate. It seems that prior to the institution of this action the plaintiff had filed a bill to enjoin the defendant from maintaining a fence across the right of way in question in this case, and from which the declaration alleged that certain trackage was wrongfully removed. Upon a demurrer being sustained to this bill, an appeal was taken to this Court and the order sustaining the demurrer to the bill was reversed. See 90 Fla. 334 ,
More

On petition for rehearing, it is contended that this is not an action for damages for trespass to real estate, but an action on the case, and hence that the three-year statute of limitations does not apply; that the case falls within the operation of the four-year limitation.

There was no demurrer to the plea of the three-year limitation, but the plaintiffs interposed a replication thereto, as follows: "That the statute of limitations in this cause is not three years but four years."

To this replication the defendant demurred on the following grounds: "1. It alleges no fact. 2. It only alleges a conclusion of law. 3. The issue sought to be raised should be presented by demurrer."

This demurrer was sustained by the court, and properly so. The court in the order sustaining the demurrer, allowed plaintiffs until the following rule day to plead further. Plaintiffs did not see fit to do so. The court on motion *Page 370 afterward rendered final judgment for defendant, in which it was recited that "the plaintiffs not desiring to plead further, but failing and refusing so to do; now, therefore, it is ordered and adjudged," etc.

Thus, even if there be any merit in the contention of plaintiffs in error, they did not properly present the question in the court below, and though the court gave them another opportunity to do so, they either declined or failed to take advantage of it. Under these circumstances, we do not think we would be warranted in reversing the case on this ground, even if the fundamental basis of the contention of plaintiffs in error be well founded, which is by no means clear. See 38 Cyc. 1029.

Rehearing denied.

TERRELL, C. J., AND ELLIS, J., concur.

WHITFIELD, P. J., AND STRUM AND BUFORD, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer