SUDDATH MOVING & STORAGE COMPANY v. Roure
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re Aerospace Technologies, Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. North Carolina 1996)
- Poole v. Christian (Hamilton County Municipal Court 1980)
- Kellenberger v. Bob Meyers Moving & Storage Co. (Okla. Civ. App. 1979)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
SUDDATH MOVING & STORAGE COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant,
v.
George A. ROURE and Patricia L. Roure, His Wife, Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
H. Eugene Johnson, Tampa, for appellant.
David A. Maney, Tampa, for appellees.
MANN, Chief Judge.
Roure asked Suddath to pick up the contents of his house and store them pending notification of an address to which they would be shipped. No such notification was given, and after more than two months Suddath mailed a notice to the address Roure had given, but the letter was returned. Suddath sold the goods to satisfy its lien for their storage, but did not advertise the sale as required by Fla. Stat. 677.210 (1971), F.S.A. To Roure's action for conversion of the goods, Suddath pleaded that it was not a warehouseman, but a carrier. Our Supreme Court long ago determined that in a particular case a carrier may also be a *550 warehouseman. S.A.L. Ry. Co. v. A.R. Harper Piano Co., 1912, 63 Fla. 264, 58 So. 491. Clearly that was the status of Suddath here, and the entry of judgment on the verdict for Roure was correct. See 3 Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code. § 7-210 (2d ed. 1971).
Affirmed.
LILES and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.