PENSACOLA BANK & TRUST COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE NATIONAL BANK OF ST. PETERSBURG, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
The Florida Supreme Court dismissed a writ of error because the lower court's entry was not a final judgment, but merely an order for judgment and an award of costs. The court emphasized that a final judgment must adjudicate the merits of the case.
No, such an order is not a final judgment because it does not adjudicate the merits of the case by stating the plaintiff takes nothing or that the defendant is discharged.
“Whereupon it is ordered that judgment is rendered for the defendant and that the defendant do have and recover of and from the plaintiff its costs in this behalf expended, to be taxed by the clerk, now assessed at one hundred and sixty-four 39-100 Dollars.”
Describes the lower court's entry that was reviewed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a jury verdict for the defendant, the lower court entered an order stating that judgment was rendered for the defendant and awarded costs to…
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.
This cause being taken up in its regular order for final disposition the court finds in the record the following entry for a judgment in the cause immediately following the verdict of the jury finding for the defendant:
“Whereupon it is ordered that judgment is rendered for the defendant and that the defendant do have and recover of and from the plaintiff its costs in this behalf expended, to be taxed by the clerk, now assessed at one hundred and sixty-four 39-100 Dollars.” Section 1691 General Statutes of 1906 provides that writs of error shall lie only from final judgments.
The quoted entry in this cause 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. Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353, 33 South. Rep. 982; Mitchell v. St. Petersburg & G. Ry. Co., 56 Fla. 497, 47 South. Rep. 794; Dallam v. Sanchez, 56 Fla. 779, 47 South. Rep. 871, and cases cited.
There being no final judgment in the cause the writ of error must be, and is hereby, dismissed, at the cost of the plaintiff in error. All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emory Catchings v. Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co., 101 Fla. 792 (Fla. 1931)…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. See Pensacola B. & T. Co. v. N. B. of St. Petersburg, 58 Fla. 340, 50 So. 414; Milteer v. S. A. L. Ry Co., 65 Fla. 357, 61 So. 749; Young v. Lassiter et al., 87 Fla. 445, 100 So. 362; Flynn-Harris-Bullard Co. v. Hampton et al., 70 Fla. 231, 70 So. 385; Mitchell v. St. Petersburg & Gulf R. Co., 56 Fla. 497, 47 So.…
-
Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, Inc., 99 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…Í33.20 principal and $29.49 costs.” The Supreme Court .there said that the aforementioned did not constitute a final judgment that would support a writ of error. Again, the court, in Pensacola Bank & Trust Company v. National Bank of St. Petersburg, 58 Fla. 340, 50 So. 414, considered a writ of error based on an entry following a verdict and a recitation that judgment was rendered for the defendant together with his costs, and held that such an entry was not a final judgment sufficient to support review by…
-
Young v. Lassiter, 87 Fla. 445 (Fla. 1924)…rt has several times held that such an entry as this does not constitute a final judgment which will support a writ of error. Milteer v. S. A. L. Ry. Co., 65 Fla. 357, 61 South. Rep. 749; Pensacola Bank and Trust Co. v. National Bank St. Petersburg, 58 Fla. 340, 50 South. Rep. 414; Blanton v. West Coast R. Co., 58 Fla. 169, 50 South. Rep. 945; Dallam v. Sanchez, 56 Fla. 779, 47 South. Rep. 871; Cobb v. Santa Rosa County, 47 Fla. 135, 36 South. Rep. 172, Haynes v. Bramlett, 46 Fla. 348, 35 South. Rep. 3; Ha…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dallam v. Sanchez, 56 Fla. 779 (Fla. 1908)
- Callie Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353 (Fla. 1903)
- Mitchell v. St. Petersburg & Gulf Ry. Co., 56 Fla. 497 (Fla. 1908)