Millsom v. Demmon, (1932)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 4
Judges: BUFORD, C. J. —
Attorneys: Milton, Pledger, for Plaintiff in Error;
Johnston Rogers, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Nov. 09, 1932
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This case was before us heretofore and judgment for plaintiff was reversed (Demmon vs. Millsom, 100 Fla. 955 , 130 So. 462 ) and the cause remanded for new trial. When the case came on for trial the judgment and mandate of this court having precluded recovery by plaintiff, the only question left for determination was the assessment of damages for which the plaintiff was liable under the terms of his replevin bond. To arrive at a correct answer to this question it was necessary to ascertain the t
Summary: This case was before us heretofore and judgment for plaintiff was reversed (Demmon vs. Millsom, 100 Fla. 955 , 130 So. 462 ) and the cause remanded for new trial. When the case came on for trial the judgment and mandate of this court having precluded recovery by plaintiff, the only question left for determination was the assessment of damages for which the plaintiff was liable under the terms of his replevin bond. To arrive at a correct answer to this question it was necessary to ascertain the tr..
More
I concur in the opinion and in the judgment of reversal. The replevin laws were amended in 1923 to make clear the intent of the law to allow a judgment only for thetrue value of what was involved in the
replevin issue at the time of the suit, not any fictitious value stated in pleadings or otherwise.
The plea of set off was not the proper remedy for plaintiff. Plaintiff's remedy would be a set off in equity of his alleged claim against the defendant in replevin,after judgment is entered in this case in the defendant's favor, if the defendant is deemed to be incapable of responding to an independent judgment against him in plaintiff's favor. See 24 Rawle C. L. 803 et seq.
BUFORD, C.J. AND WHITFIELD, J., concur.
Source: CourtListener
