R. H. PAUL, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
COMMERCIAL BANK OF OCALA, 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.
R. H. Paul challenged a judgment rendered against him as an alleged partner in S. A. Eawls & Company on a promissory note. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the judgment because it failed to identify Paul as a member of the firm or make a specific finding that he was liable on the note, and remanded for a new trial to ensure proper adjudication.
The judgment must be reversed because it failed to properly adjudicate the real issue in the case by identifying Paul as a member of the firm and making a specific finding that he was liable on the note. A new trial is warranted to ensure proper proceedings in adjudicating the issues involved.
“The judgment does not adjudicate the issue made by the pleadings.”
Establishes that the trial court's judgment failed to address the central dispute between the parties regarding Paul's partnership status.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCommercial Bank of Ocala sued E. H. Paul, W. J. Hillman, S. A. Eawls, C. M. Sweat and P. L. Sweat as partners formerly doing business as S. A. Eawls &…
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 Partnership Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam
The bank brought an action against “E. H. Paul, W. J. Hillman, S. A. Eawls, C. M. Sweat and P. L. Sweat, as late partners formerly doing business under the name and style of S. A. Eawls & Company” on a promissory note signed by S. A. Eawls & Co. Service of process was had on E. H. Paul alone. W. J. Hillman and S. A. Eawls appeared and pleaded. C. M. Sweat and P. L. Sweat were not served and did not appear. The action was dismissed as to Hillman upon the theory that he was not a partner and was not liable. The real issue in the cause was upon the plea of R. H. Panl that he was never a member of the firm of S. A. Rawls & Company, and liable on the note.
A verdict “for the plaintiff” was returned and the following judgment was rendered in the cause:
“It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff, the said Commercial Bank of Ocala, do have and recover of and from the said defendant, S. A. Rawls & Co., the sum of one thousand dollars, damages, with the sum of one hundred sixty-five dollars as interest, and the further sum of one hundred dollars, as attorney’s fees, together with the further sum of $----taxed as cost in their behalf in this suit, and that execution do issue therefor, according to law.”
R. H. Paul took a writ of error in the name of himself and S. A. Rawls and had summons and severance as to S. A. Rawls.
A number of contentions are made hereon rulings of the trial court as to the admissibility of evidence as well as an insistance that a motion for a verdict for the defendant Paul should have been granted. The judgment does not adjudicate the issue made by the pleadings. See Baker & Holmes Co. v. Indian River Bank, 61 Fla. 106.
Under the peculiar circumstances of this case the irregularity of not naming the members of the firm against which the judgment purports to be rendered, makes it proper to reverse the judgment. The real issue in the cause being whether Paul was a partner and liable on the note in -controversy, the judgment should at least identify Paul as a member of the firm, there being ho specific finding in the-record that Paul was a member of the firm and liable on the note, even if such a finding would aid the judgment as rendered here. While it cannot be said that the court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant Paul, justice will be subserved by granting a new trial that appropriate proceedings may be observed in adjudicating the questions here involved.
The judgment is reversed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Paul v. Commercial Bank of Ocala, 69 Fla. 62 (Fla. 1915)…Shackleford, J. For the second time R. H. Paul brings here for review a judgment recovered against him by the Commercial Bank of Ocala, a corporation. The opinion which we rendered upon the former writ of error will be found in 66 Fla. 83, 63 South. Rep. 265. As stated therein, the bank brought an action against “R. H. Paul, W. J. Hilman, S. A. Rawls, C. M. Sweat, and F. L. Sweat, as late partners, formerly doing business under the name and style of S. A. Rawls & Company” on a promis…
-
Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Ebert, 102 Fla. 641 (Fla. 1931)…nd against whom a joint verdict was rendered. See Trustees Int. Imp. Fund v. Jacksonville, Pensacola and Mobile R. R. Co., 16 Fla. 708; Baker & Holmes Co. v. Indian River State Bank, 61 Fla. 106, 55 South. Rep. 836; Paul v. Commercial Bank of Ocala, 66 Fla. 83, 63 South. Rep. 265; Hancock v. State Exchange Bank, 70 Fla. 243, 70 South. Rep. 211; Potter v. Realty Securities Co., 77 Fla. 768, 82 South. Rep. 298; 33 C. J. 1124-1127. When an improper judgment is entered upon a proper verdict the appellate cou…
Authorities Cited
- Baker & Holmes Co. v. Indian River State Bank, 61 Fla. 106 (Fla. 1911)