DOVE INVESTMENT CORP
v.
SING HON LAU, AND UNKNOWN TENANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An order directing that judgment be rendered for the defendant is not a final judgment sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction unless it contains language equivalent to adjudging that the plaintiff take nothing by the suit and the defendant go hence without day.
[1] An order directing that judgment be rendered for a defendant is not a final judgment supporting appellate jurisdiction unless it contains language adjudging that the plai…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The quoted entry in this cause [referring to ordering that judgment is rendered for the defendant] is not such a final judgment as will support a writ of error. No issue between the parties in the cause is adjudicated or finally disposed of thereby.”
Pensacola Bank & Tr. Co. v. Nat'l Bank of St. Petersburg, 50 So. 414, 414 (Fla. 1909)
Dove Investment Corp appealed from a trial court order in what appears to be a property dispute involving Sing Hon Lau and an unknown tenant.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Writ Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Court dismisses this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Pensacola Bank & Tr. Co. v. Nat’l Bank of St. Petersburg, 50 So. 414, 414 (Fla. 1909) (“The quoted entry in this cause [referring to ordering that judgment is rendered for the defendant] is not such a final judgment as will support a writ of error. No issue between the parties in the cause is adjudicated or finally disposed of thereby. It does not adjudge that the plaintiff take nothing by his plaint, nor does it adjudge that the defendant be discharged, or go hence without day. At best, it is an order for the entry of a judgment in favor of the defendant, and an adjudication in his favor for costs.”); Catchings v. Fla.-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co., 135 So. 561, 561–62 (Fla. 1931) (“[Language ordering that judgment is rendered for the defendant] may be regarded as an order that an appropriate judgment for the defendant be duly entered, but it is not such a final judgment as will support a writ of error. The words, ‘judgment is hereby rendered herein for the defendant,’ are not the equivalent of words that the plaintiff ‘take nothing by his suit, and that the defendant go hence without day,’ or words of like legal import.”).
M.K. THOMAS and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur; KELSEY, J., concurs in result. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Emory Catchings v. Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co., 101 Fla. 792 (Fla. 1931)