LYMAN, SEARS & CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
MARK ALEXANDER, APPELLEE
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.
This case concerns an appeal from an order dissolving an attachment before a plea was filed. The Florida Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding the order to be interlocutory.
No, the Florida Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order dissolving an attachment that is interlocutory and precedes a final judgment of dismissal.
“Here the attachment was dissolved before plea to the action, but, non constat that the suit had been actually dismissed.”
Establishes the procedural posture of the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA suit was initiated by attachment. Before the defendant filed a plea, the attachment was dissolved. The plaintiff appealed this order dissolving the …
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 Attachment cases and more on FLexlaw
DuPONT, Chief Justice:
This suit was brought in the Circuit Court of Duval county, by process of attachment. Before the defendant had pleaded to the action, the attachment was dissolved, and from the order dissolving the attachment, this appeal has been taken.
The statute (Thomp. Dig. 370, § 5,) provides that when any suit shall hereafter be commenced by attachment, and the same on motion dissolved before plea to the action, then in every such case the suit shall abate and be dismissed from the Court, &e.
Here the attachment was dissolved before plea to the action, but, non constat that the suit had been actually dismissed.
To accomplish that end, it requires the appropriate judgment of the Court. No such judgment appears in the record,, and until such final judgment, the' cause remains in Court.. The order dissolving the attachment being only interlocutory, and the appeal being based thereon,, this Court has no jurisdiction of the same.
This view of the case relieves the' Court from considering' the validity of the appeal bond, which was raised by the motion to dismiss.
It is therefore ordered that the appeal taken in this cause be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.