W. M. HANCOCK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE EXCHANGE BANK AND OTHERS, APPELLEES
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 lower court's decision to postpone ruling on the constitutionality of certain exemption laws and the proper procedure for garnishing a money judgment. The appellate court held that the trial court acted within its discretion by waiting for a full hearing before deciding these complex issues.
The court held that it should not pass upon these questions as they had not been decided by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's right to postpone the decision until all parties could be fully heard.
“The two questions sought to be decided on this appeal, vis., is an actual levy necessary before the sheriff is called upon to allow the exemption, and is the garnishment of a money judgment properly cognizable in these proceedings, have never been passed upon by the court of first instance, and we, as an appellate court sitting to correct its errors, should not undertake to pass upon these questions.”
Establishes the appellate court's reasoning for not deciding the issues presented.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA complainant sought to have personal property and a money judgment set aside as exempt from garnishment. The complainant requested immediate action f…
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 Money Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
A bill was filed praying that certain personal property be set aside as exempt including a judgment in favor of the complainant against one of the defendants, against whom a writ of garnishment had issued. Upon the filing-of the bill immediate action was requested, but it being made to appear that no actual levy had been made, the court refused to act immediately and held the matter in abeyance until the final hearing.
The time consumed by this appeal has been considerably more than would have been needed to bring the matters to an issue in the manner desired by the chancellor. The two questions sought to be decided on this appeal, vis., is an actual levy necessary before the sheriff is called upon to allow the exemption, and is the garnishment of a money judgment properly cognizable in these proceedings, have never been passed upon by the court of first instance, and we, as an appellate court sitting to correct its errors, should not undertake to pass upon these questions.
We think the court had the right to postpone the decision of these questions until all the parties interested could be fully heard, and we will not interfere with his order of postponement.
Order affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.