THE D. R. DUNLAP MERCANTILE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
ST. JOHN & QUIGLEX 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.
This case involves a dispute over the distribution of proceeds from the sale of a debtor's property among multiple creditors. The appellate court dismissed the appeal due to a lack of proper citation to the appellees, meaning the court lacked jurisdiction.
No, the appellate court did not acquire proper jurisdiction over the appellees because the citation was informal and defective, and there was no waiver or appearance by the appellees.
“Under these circumstances, there being no waiver of citation or appearance here by any of the appellees, this court can not be said to have acquired such jurisdiction over the persons of the appellees as legally to enable ns to adjudicate their rights in the premises.”
Establishes the lack of jurisdiction due to improper citation and absence of waiver or appearance.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant and appellees were creditors of A. H. Green, with their writs levied on the same personal property. The appellees obtained judgments and…
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
Taylor, J.:
The appellant and the appellees were attaching creditors of one A. H. Green in the Circuit Court of Santa Rosa county, their several writs being levied upon the same personal property of the common debtor at different times. The appellees all recovered judgments by default on the rule day in November, 1889, upon their respective claims, and the appellant recovered judgment by default upon its claim in December, 1889. The defendant’s property, that had been levied upou by the various writs, wrns sold upon the application of some of the parties and the proceeds turned over into the registry of the court to await its distribution among said several creditors. On the 13th day of May, 1889,. the court, upon the application of the appellees, St. John & Quigley, made an order directing the distribution of the fund to the payment pro rata of the several claims of the appellees, to the exclusion of the appellant. From this orcler the appellant has taken its appeal.
Upon examination of the record we find that nopjroper citation has ever been issued in the cause and served upon the appellees or their attorneys. In the transcript of the record there is what purports to be a citation that is wholly informal and defective in that it is not styled as process as it should be — “The State of Florida” — and it is not tested in the name of the Chief-Justice of this court, but is tested simply in the-name of the Clerk of the' Circuit Court who issued same, and it does not even purport to be a writ of and from this court, and does not notify the appelleestherein in express terms that an appeal has been taken. Under these circumstances, there being no waiver of citation or appearance here by any of the appellees, this court can not be said to have acquired such jurisdiction over the persons of the appellees as legally to enable ns to adjudicate their rights in the premises. Tischler vs. Wall, 20 Fla. 924; Knight vs. Weiskopf, 21 Fla. 157. It being patent, therefore, from the record that the appellees are not properly before the court, the appeal herein is hereby dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Joost v. Elliott, 20 Fla. 924 (Fla. 1884)
- Alva A. Knight et. al. v. H. & H. Weiskopf, 21 Fla. 157 (Fla. 1885)