JOHN MERCER, APPELLANT,
v.
HERBERT H. BOOBY, APPELLEE
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 affirmed a judgment against a garnishee, holding that the garnishee's appearance in court waived any defects in the service of the garnishment writ. This decision established that the rule regarding appearance curing service defects applies to garnishment writs as well as ordinary summons.
Yes, the garnishee's appearance in court cures any defects in the service of the writ of garnishment.
“The error assigned is that the endorsement on the writ [*724] does not show how the service was perfected, whether by delivery of a copy or otherwise.”
This quote states the appellant's sole assignment of error regarding the sufficiency of the service endorsement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Mercer, the appellant and garnishee, was served with a writ of garnishment. At the subsequent court term, both parties appeared by their attorney…
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 Garnishment cases and more on FLexlaw
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The appellant John Mercer was summoned by a writ of garnishment, to answer and set forth what goods and chat-ties, rights and credits, money or effects were in his possession or control, belonging to Philip S. Lever, the plaintiff in execution. The indorsement on the writ is as follows : “ Served—-July 25th, 1854—E. T. Kendrick, Sheriff.” The record shows that at the fall term, 1854, the parties appeared by their attorneys and that a judgment was entered against the garnishee for the want oí a plea or answer. The error assigned is that the endorsement on the writ does not show how the service was perfected, whether by delivery of a copy or otherwise.
The statute (vide Thompson’s Digest, 372,) provides that the service of the writ of garnishment shall he the same as is provided in the case of a summons ad respondendum, and it has been heretofore decided by this court that the appearamce of a defendant in a suit cures any defect in the service of the writ. (D. B. Wood & Co. vs. Bk. of the State of Geo., 1 Fla. Rep., 378.) We can perceive no good reason why the same rule should not he applicable to the service of writs of garnishment.
Therefore let the judgment of the Circuit Court he affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bartley v. Bingham, 34 Fla. 19 (Fla. 1894)
-
Laura M. Watson, P.A. v. Stewart Tilghman FOX & Bianchi, P.A., 162 So. 3d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…“res”). Contrary to that position, the Florida Supreme Court has previously held that a garnishee can waive the requirement that the court obtain jurisdiction only through strict compliance with service of process requirements. In Mercer v. Booby, 6 Fla. 723, 723-24 (1856), the question presented was whether defects in service of process of a writ of garnishment was waived by the general appearance of a garnishee. In Mercer, the garnishee entered a general appearance before the trial court, but failed t…
Authorities Cited
- Denison B. Wood and Nathaniel J. Deblois v. Bank of the State of Ga., 1 Fla. 378 (Fla. 1847)