P. B. BLOUNT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. C. GALLAHER, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Fla. | 1886-01-01
22 Fla. 92 Florida Supreme Court (1886) Positive Treatment
Cited by 29 cases

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.

Synopsis

This case reviews a default judgment entered by a clerk. The appellate court found that the clerk failed to properly document the evidence considered when entering the final judgment, rendering it invalid. The case clarifies the procedural requirements for clerks entering default judgments.


Holding

No, the final default judgment was not valid because the record did not show that the clerk considered any evidence to support the amount awarded, which is required for a clerk to enter a final judgment.


Key Quotes

“The Clerk, in entering judgments by default, acts in a mere ministerial capacity; he exercises no judicial functions.”

Establishes the limited role of the clerk in entering default judgments.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The plaintiff sued the defendant and obtained a default judgment from the clerk. The plaintiff later filed an unverified account, then an affidavit, a…

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.


Opinion of the Court

The Chief-Justice delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant in error brought his suit in the Circuit Court of Suwannee county against P. B. Blount. The summons was returnable to the first Monday in March, A. D. 1884, on which day, his declaration having been filed, and the defendant not appearing, the plaintiff filed a praecipe requiring the clerk to enter a judgment by default, as follows: “ It appearing from the records and files in above stated cause that plaintiff’s praecipe for summons ad respondendum herein was filed, and that summons ad, respondendum was issued and executed on the 21st day of February, A. D. 1884, returnable to rule day in March, 1884, and that declaration was filed therein on said day, and that defendant failed to appear, plead, answer or demur thereto on said rule day, as required by law, it is, on motion and praecipe, upon consideration, adjudged that plaintiff do have, and judgment by default is hereby entered herein in favor of said plaintiff for the sum of two hundred and sixty-nine and 93-100 dollars, principal, and-dollars, costs, of which he may have final judgment.” In entering the default, the clerk also gave judgment against the defendant for the $269.93. Afterwards, on the 4th day of March, 1884, the plaintiff filed his account, not verified by affidavit or otherwise. On the 29th day of March, the plaintiff filed his affidavit that the account filed on March 4th was just and due and unpaid.

Afterwards, on the 23d day of April, A. D. 1884, the plaintiff filed another affidavit verifying the account filed by him on the 4th of March previous. On the last mentioned day the clerk entered a final judgment against the defendant for $269.93, as follows: “ This cause came on to be considered ; it is, upon consideration, adjudged that the above named plaintiff, J. O. Gallaher, do have and recover against the said defendant, P. B. Blount, judgment final for the sum of two hundred and sixty-nine and 93-100 ($269.93) dollars, as principal, and the sum of six and 87-100 dollars, as costs herein.

“ It appearing from the records that prsecipe herein for summons cul respondendum was filed on the 21st day of February, A. D. 1884, and summons ad respondendum issued thereon the 21st day of February, A. D. 1884, and that the same was returnable to the first Monday (rule day) in March, A. D. 1884, and that the same was executed by the sheriff on the 21st day of February, A. D. 1884, and that plaintiff’s declaration Was filed on the third day of March, A. D. 1884, and that defendant failed to appear, plead, answer or demur to said declaration on rule day in March, to which the said summons was returnable, and that praecipe for judgment by default herein was filed 3d day of March, A. D. 1884, and judgment by default entered on said 3d day of March, A. D. 1884, for want of appearance therein by defendant; and it is further ordered, upon consideration, that plaintiff: herein do have execution for said sum of two hundred and sixty-nine and ninety-three one-hundredth dollars, principal, and six and eighty-seven one-hundredth dollars costs herein expended.”

The plaintiff in error assigns as erroneous, “ that the judgment entered by the clerk was without, proper evidence;” and, “because there are two judgments entered in .the same case upon the same cause of action.”

The first judgment entered is not a final judgment. It is, notwithstanding its phraseology, only a judgment by default. The statement of the amount due plaintiff, and giving judgment therefor, is mere surplusage.

This court, in Coons vs. Harllee, 17 Fla., 484, say: “ On the rule day, being the return day of summons in assumpsit, the clerk made the following entry : ‘there being no appearance, plea or answer, on motion of plaintiff’s attorney judgment is given by default, in the sum of $202.68, principal and interest:’ Held, That this is not a final judgment, but only a default.”

It will be seen that in the final judgment, rendered April 23d, there is no allegation, or recital by the clerk therein, of any evidence having been submitted to him by the plaintiff to prove his claim. The final judgment should set forth fully what evidence was produced by the plaintiff. The mere fact of filing an affidavit where the judgment entry does not show that it was considered by the clerk, or was the basis of the judgment, is insufficient.

In Kelly vs. VanAustin, 17 Cal., 564, Mr. Justice Field says: “ The Clerk, in entering judgments by default, acts in a mere ministerial capacity; he exercises no judicial functions.

“The statute authorizes the judgment, and the clerk is merely an agent, by whom it is written out and placed among the records of the court. He must, therefore, conform strictly to the provisions of the statute, or his proceedings will be without any binding'force.”

In the case of Snell vs. Irvine, 17 Fla., 234, this court say : “ The clerk, in ascertaining the amount which the plaintiff is entitled to recover, in an action on an open account, must act upon proofs produced and filed, upon entry of the default, and the record must disclose the fact.”

In the case of Coons vs. Harllee, 17 Fla., 484, this court said: “ And the fact of the production and filing of the note, and assessment of the amount due, should appear in the record, to authorize the entry of final judgment.” See, also, Smith vs. Branch; Bank of Mobile, 5 Ala., 26.

Judgment reversed and the cause remanded with instructions that further proceedings therein be based on the judgment of default entered on the first Monday in March, A. D. 1884.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (15 total)

  • Nannie McDaniel v. McElvy, 108 So. 820 (Fla. 1926)
    …but it should be, and so far as we know it is, the universal and invariable procedure. The Clerk’s function in such matters is analogous to his action' in entering up a default, and in some cases a final judgment, in law actions. Blount v. Gallaher, 22 Fla. 92; Gamble v. J. P. & M. R. Co., 14 Fla. 226. Such ministerial acts do not preclude the judge from opening the default or setting aside the final judgment if any jurisdictional or other deficiency be found in the process or other essentials of the proc…
  • Maxwell J. Brooks v. Owens, 97 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1957)
    …in Slatcoff v. Dezen, Fla., 1954, [*695] 72 So. 2d 800, in that it does not indicate an end of judicial labor. This court long ago ruled that an order of default is not a final judgment. Coons v. Harllee, 1880, 17 Fla. 484; Blount v. Gallaher, 1886, 22 Fla. 92. See also 4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 155. This court will review an interlocutory order in law only under exceptional circumstances. Where it clearly appears that there is no full, adequate and complete remedy by appeal after final judgment availa…
  • Parker v. Dekle, 46 Fla. 452 (Fla. 1903)
    …. In cases where extrinsic evidence dehors the contract sued upon is necessary to ascertain the amount to be re [*457] covered, the clerk has no authority to entertain such evidence or to found a final judgment thereon.” Also see Blount v. Gallaher, 22 Fla. 92; Snell v. Irvine, 17 Fla. 234; Coons v. Harlee, Id. 484; Ropes v. Snyder Harris Bassett Co., 37 Fla. 529, 20 South. Rep. 535. And “upon a hearing in damages, after the overruling of a demurrer, the case stands with reference to the evidence necessar…

Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw