SIDNEY J. CATTS, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOR THE USE OF JOHN A. HENDERSON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
GETTIS A. HENDERSON, G. N. BENJAMIN AND W. H. KENDRICK, 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 reversed a lower court's decision that a declaration was insufficient in law, finding that while the lower court did not abuse its discretion in vacating a default judgment, the declaration did state a cause of action.
No, the trial court erred in holding the declaration insufficient in law. While the court acted within its power to vacate the default judgment, the declaration did not wholly fail to state a cause of action.
“While on the whole record the trial court will not be held to have abused its power in vacating the default and final judgment, the declaration does not wholly fail to state a cause of action, therefore the declaration should not have been held bad on demurrer.”
This quote encapsulates the court's main reasoning, distinguishing between the vacating of the default and the sufficiency of the declaration.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn an action on a guardian's bond, a default judgment was entered against the sureties. The court later vacated this default and allowed pleas to be 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 Vacating Default Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
[*139] Per Curiam.
In this action on a guardian’s bond, a default against the sureties" was entered for failure to plead, and final judgment against the sureties was rendered upon an assessment of damages by á jury. Subsequently the court on motion and affidavits vacated the default and final judgment and permitted pleas to be filed. A motion to strike the pleas was denied. On a demurrer to the pleas the court held the declaration to be “bad in substance and insufficient in law.” The plaintiff declining to plead further, final judgment for the defendants wms rendered. A writ of error was taken.
While on the whole record the trial court will not be held to have abused its power in vacating the default and final judgment, the declaration does not wholly fail to state a cause of action, therefore the declaration should not have been held bad on demurrer. The judgment is reversed for further proceedings appropriate to the declaration.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peterson v. Oscar Daniels Co., 83 Fla. 29 (Fla. 1922)…f error. The declaration is needlessly prolix, but as the allegations do not by repugnance- destroy each other, and as the declaration does not wholly fail to state a cause of action,- the demurrer should have been overruled. See Catts v. Henderson, 81 Fla. 138, 87 South. Rep. 313; Florida East [*30] Coast Ry. Co. v. City of Miami, Fla. 80 Fla. 329, 86 South. Rep. 308. Admiralty is not involved. 254 U. S. 242. Reversed. All concur.…
-
Boone v. Gay, 84 Fla. 589 (Fla. 1922)…[*590] Rep. 336; Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. City of Miami, 80 Fla. 329, 86 South. Rep. 208. See also Wertz v. Tampa Electric Co., 78 Fla. 405, 83 South. Rep. 270; Peterson v. Oscar Daniels Co., 83 Fla. 29, 90 South. Rep. 621; Catts v. Henderson, 81 Fla. 138, 87 South. Rep. 313; Jaudon v. Fidelity Bank & Trust Co., 81 Fla. 313, 87 South. Rep. 313. Reversed. Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.…
-
Henderson v. Gettis A. Henderson, 96 Fla. 872 (Fla. 1928)…chancellor found to be supported by the testimony and to comport with the justice and equity of the cause. Per Curiam. — In various forms this is the sixth appearance of this case in this Court. For other appearances see Catts et al, v. Henderson, 81 Fla. 138, 87 So. R. 313; Henderson v. Kendrick, 82 Fla. 110, 89 So. R. 635; Kendrick et al, v. Henderson, 87 Fla. 476, 100 So. R. 794; Henderson v. Henderson et al, 87 Fla. 470, 100 So. R. 792, and Henderson v. Henderson, 91 Fla. 457, 107 So. R. 644. Appell…