THE NATIONAL TRUCKING COMPANY, INCORPORATED,
v.
ALLEN GILL; THE NATIONAL TRUCKING COMPANY, INCORPORATED, V. BUD GILL
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 denial of a petition to stay execution, finding that the defendant was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before a trial that occurred without their knowledge or counsel's participation.
Yes, the defendant was organically entitled to notice and an opportunity to be present and defend. Rule 56 is designed to protect this organic right, and the defendant's counsel was not negligent.
“The defendant was organically entitled to notice and an opportunity to be present and to defend when the trial was had, and Rule 56 is designed to conserve such organic right.”
Establishes the fundamental right of the defendant to notice and defense.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe National Trucking Company, Incorporated, obtained writs of error to review orders denying their petitions to stay executions. These executions wer…
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.
The writ of error in each of these cases was taken to a final order made in a statutory proceeding denying a petition to stay an execution issued upon a judgment in an action for personal injury obtained in the ab*845sence and without the knowledge of the trial or negligence of counsel for the defendant and without a compliance with the essential requirements of Rule 56 of the Circuit Court Rules in Common Law Actions. The defendant was organically entitled to notice and an opportunity to be present and to defend when the trial was had, and Rule 56 is designed to conserve such organic right. The bill of exceptions and the record proper show that counsel for the defendant was not negligent under the facts of the case and was therefore entitled to the notice contemplated by Rule 56 which is binding on the court and counsel.
Reversed.
Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Ci-iapman, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Town of Coreytown v. State Ex Rel. Ervin, 60 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1952)…32, Paragraphs A and C. The giving of said notice is mandatory upon the Court and litigants, unless the parties to the action waive the same and consent to trial by proper stipulation duly made and entered. National Trucking Company, Inc., v. Gill, 132 Fla. 844, 182 So. 220. Common Law Rule 16 provides that after all issues are settled the Court may of its own motion set a case for pre-trial conference to consider and determine: "(1) The simplification of the issues; (2) The necessity or desirability of a…
-
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Holbrook, 226 So. 3d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…circuit court on remand, that U.S. Bank’s foreclosure of this mortgage may not necessarily depend upon reforming it, as this instrument appears to contain a valid street address and parcel identification number. Cf. Maynard v. Miller, 132 Fla, 269, 182 So. 220, 221 (1938) ("It is well settled in this jurisdiction that if the description of the land conveyed in a deed is such that a surveyor, by applying the rules of surveying, can locate the same, such description is sufficient, and the deed will be susta…
-
Kantor v. Roffeld, 4 Fla. Supp. 100 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1953)…was “the next ensuing term of said court.” The notice of trial required by common law rule 32 is an important provision designed to guarantee defendant’s organic right to notice of proceedings against him. National Trucking Co., Inc. v. Gill (Fla.), 182 So. 220. The clerk’s duty to docket causes is limited to those in which notice has been given at least 15 days before commencement of the term for trial at “the next ensuing term of court” after service of such notice, and counsel’s duty to take notice of t…