VIRGINIA-CAROLINA CHEMICAL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
F. A. SHADINGER AND J. N. OSTEEN, DEFENDANTS 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, holding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a right to review a judgment to include additional defendants who were not parties to the judgment or the writ of error.
No, the plaintiff cannot obtain appellate review for the purpose of including additional defendants in a judgment when those defendants were not parties to the original judgment or the writ of error, and the plaintiff has not demonstrated a right to a judgment against them.
“The plaintiff in error does not show by the transcript that the trial court had authority to enter judgment against Burnham and Slifer, they having appeared but no default being entered against them for failure to plead.”
Establishes the lack of a valid judgment against Burnham and Slifer in the lower court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVirginia-Carolina Chemical Company sued four individuals on a joint note. Default judgments were entered against two defendants (Shadinger and Osteen)…
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 Ex Parte Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
An action was brought by the Virginia-Carolina Chemical Company against W. H. Burn-ham, C. H. Slifer, F. A. Shadinger and J. N. Osteen on a joint note made by them. W. E. Burnham and C. H. Slifer appeared.- A default was entered against F. A. Sliadinger and J. N. Osteen, who were served with process. It does not appear that Burnham and Slifer filed any pleading, or that a default was entered against them. On an ex parte hearing a verdict was returned against all four of the defendants. Judgment was entered only against F. A. Sliadinger and J. N. Osteen. The plaintiff took writ of error. The writ of error was dismissed, but was afterwards reinstated by the court.
The plaintiff in error does not show by the transcript that the trial court had authority to enter judgment against Burnham and Slifer, they having appeared but no default being entered against them for failure to plead. The plaintiff in error is not entitled to a review here of the judgment merely for the purpose of opening up the judgment to later take action so as to include an adjudication against Burnham and Slifer in .the judgment, since the plaintiff does not show a right to a judgment against Burnham and Slifer, even if such a review would be permitted here when Burnham and Slifer are not parties to the judgment obtained or to the writ of error brought to review the judgment.
The Writ of Error is dismissed.
Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.