O. V. GATES, APPELLANT,
v.
EMELINE S. HAYNER ET AL., 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 dismissed an appeal from a demurrer ruling, holding that no final judgment had been entered and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to review the case. The court reaffirmed that an appeal cannot be taken until a final judgment terminating the action has been formally entered.
No appeal or writ of error lies to the Florida Supreme Court in a common law action until a final judgment has been formally entered that terminates the case and makes a final disposition of the action. A mere order sustaining a demurrer, without a final judgment, does not give the appellate court jurisdiction to review.
“Until there is an entry of a final judgment terminating the case, no appeal or writ of error lies to this court in a common law action.”
Establishes the core holding that appellate jurisdiction requires entry of a final judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendants filed a demurrer and pleas to the plaintiff's declaration. The trial court entered an order sustaining the demurrer, which the plaintif…
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 Record cases and more on FLexlaw
Mr. Justice Raney
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellees, who were defendants, demurred and on the same day filed pleas to the declaration. The only entries in the nature of a judgment of the court are, one of “ demurrer’ sustained ” which is signed by the Judge, he also noting an exception by the plaintiff to his rulings; and another, of “ above motion overruled ” made on a motion of the plaintiff to set aside the above “ order sustaining the demurrer.” These do not constitute a final judgment. The latter entry merely left the former standing in full force and effect. The former entry did not make a final disposition of the case, and as affecting such a disposition is no more than an order upon which a formal final judgment sustaining the demurrer, and that the plaintiff take nothing by his declaration, and that the defendant recover his costs, might be entered. Until there is an entry of a final judgment terminating the case, no appeal or writ of error lies to this court in a common law action. Chapter 3430, p. 53, of the acts of 1883, does not change this rule.
Where a plaintiff whose declaration has been demurred to successfully does not desire to amend, but wishes to rest on the pleading as it stands, he must suffer final judgment upon the action to go against him, and until there has been an entry of a judgment disposing of the action he cannot obtain a review of the ruling, under our statutes. Though the demurrer has been sustained by the entry made, yet the action is still pending, and as long as it is this court cannot touch the case. Sedgwick vs. Dawkins,, 17 Fla., 811, 555 ; 18 ib., 335 ; Savage vs. The State, 19 Fla., 561; Anderson vs. Presbyterian Church, 13 ib., 592 ; Branch vs. Branch, 5 ib., 447; Harrison vs. Thurston & Buist, 11 ib., 307 ; Cook vs. Cook, 18 Fla., 634; Coons vs. Harllee, 17 ib., 484.
There is a bill of exceptions in the record setting forth the ruling of the Judge on the demurrer. Neither an exception nor a bill of exceptions is necessary where the error, if there be any, is apparent npon the record, but the office of a bill is to incorporate into the record matters which otherwise would remain in pais. Jones vs. McCallum, 21 Fla.; Sams vs. King, 18 Fla., 553 ; Pittman, Admr., vs. Myrick, 16 Fla., 692.
The appeal must be dismissed, and it will be so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Jacksonville v. Antone Boy, 34 Fla. 389 (Fla. 1894)
-
Russell v. Russell, 507 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…writer states a policy justification for such an order’s being non-appealable until a further order dismissing the complaint has been rendered. See, for example Goldfarb v. Bronston, 154 Fla. 180, 184, 17 So. 2d 300, 301 (1944) and Gates v. Hayner, 22 Fla. 325 (1886), cited therein. See, also, Baker v. Colley, 104 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958), citing Catchings v. Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co., 101 Fla. 792, 135 So. 561 (1931). To those of us who respect precedent but do not wish to be surrogates o…
-
Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, Inc., 99 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…grounds, but the court deems it necessary to consider and decide only the first point raised by the appellee— that the ocder appealed- from is not a final judgment. Apparently, the first case in which this question arose was Gates v. Hayner, 1886, 22 Fla. 325. There was an entry of “demurrer sustained” on a demurrer to a declaration in a common law action. The court in that case held that the words “demurrer sustained” were but an order for judgment and not a judgment from which an appeal would lie. Ther…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cook v. Yancey S. Cook, 18 Fla. 634 (Fla. 1882)
- Pittman's Administrator v. Myrick, 16 Fla. 692 (Fla. 1878)
- Savage v. State, 19 Fla. 561 (Fla. 1882)
- Sedgwick v. Dewitt C. Dawkins, 17 Fla. 811 (Fla. 1880)