FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
S. B. AULTMAN, 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.
In this second appearance before the Florida Supreme Court, Fidelity & Deposit Company challenges a judgment rendered against it in a bond dispute. The court affirms the lower court's judgment, holding that the plaintiff in error failed to properly raise preserved issues and that substantial justice was accomplished at trial.
The court affirms the judgment, holding that the assignments of error do not warrant reversal because: (1) points adjudicated in the first appeal become the law of the case and cannot be relitigated; (2) several assignments of error are improper and do not meet the standards for appellate consideration; and (3) substantial justice has been accomplished between the parties.
“all the points adjudicated by an appellate court upon a writ of error or an appeal become the law of the case, and are no longer open for discussion or consideration”
Establishes the foundational principle that prior appellate decisions on the same issues cannot be relitigated in subsequent appeals
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFidelity & Deposit Company sued on a bond. In the first trial, the bond was not produced and filed in evidence, resulting in a judgment against the co…
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 Suit On A Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
Shackleford, J.
This case makes its appearance here for the second time. See 58 Fla., 228, 50 South. Rep. 991, wherein a statement of the facts will be found. Upon the former writ of error, we reversed the judgment rendered against the plaintiff in error for the reason that it did not appear that the bond sued on was produced and filed in evidence. This omission was supplied at the second trial, which trial again resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Several errors are assigned, but they do not call for any extended discussion. We would refer to what we said in McKinnon v. Lewis, 60 Fla. 125, 53 South. Rep. 940, as to the principles which should guide in the preparation of assignments of error, as some of the assignments in the instant case are open to the same objections which we pointed out there. As we have repeatedly announced, all the points adjudicated by an appellate court upon a writ of error or an appeal become the law of the case, and are no longer open for discussion or consideration. McKinnon v. Johnson, 57 Fla. 120, 48 South. Rep. 910, wherein prior decisions of this court will be found cited, and Purvis v. Frink, 61 Fla. , 54 South. Rep.
62. The application of this principle disposes of several of the contentions of the plaintiff in error. After a careful consideration of the transcript of the record and the briefs of the respective parties, we are of the opinion that substantial justice has been done between the parties and that no reversible error has been made to appear to us, therefore, the judgment must be affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Cockrell, J., concur;
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion:
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitchell v. Mason, 65 Fla. 208 (Fla. 1913)…v. Liddon, 55 Fla. 785, 46 South. Rep. 324; Williams v. State, 58 Fla. 138, 50 South. Rep. 749; McMillan v. Warren, 59 Fla. 578, 52 South. Rep. 825; McKinnon v. Lewis, 60 Fla. 125, 53 South. Rep. 940; Fidelity & Deposit Co., of Maryland, y. Aultman, 61 Fla. 197, 55 Fla. 273. We fully approve of all that is said in these cited cases as to the framing of assignments of error, but nothing said in any one of them warrants or justifies the course which the appellant has pursued, as an examination of such cases…
-
Craven v. Hartley, 102 Fla. 282 (Fla. 1931)…on the property as adjudicated in the decree against the property there is now and here no question. That decree became the law of the case as between the parties as to all matters there adjudicated. In Fidelity Deposit Co. of Maryland vs. Aultman, 61 Fla. 197, 55 Sou. 273, it was held: “All the points adjudicated by an appellate court upon a writ of error or an appeal become the law of the case, and are no longer open for discussion or consideration, McKinnon vs. Johnson, 57 Fla. 120, 48 South. Rep. 910…
-
A. R. Harper Piano Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Railway, 65 Fla. 490 (Fla. 1913)…open for discussion or consideration. See McKinnon v. Johnson, 57 Fla. 120, 48 South. Rep. 910, where prior decisions of this court will be found cited; Purvis v. Frink, 61 Fla. 712, 54 South. Rep. 862; Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Aultman, 61 Fla. 197, 55 South. Rep. 273; Hills-borough Grocery Co. v. Leman, 62 Fla. 208, 56 South. Rep. 684. In the opinion rendered upon the former writ of error, we held as follows: ■ “The action'and the recovery against the railroad company are based upon its liab…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McKinnon v. Johnson, 57 Fla. 120 (Fla. 1909)
- Attaway McKinnon v. Lewis, 60 Fla. 125 (Fla. 1910)
- Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Aultman, 58 Fla. 228 (Fla. 1909)