P. S. ARNAU, APPELLANT,
v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court, on application for rehearing, discovered and corrected a clerical error in the judgment where the referee had entered a judgment for $524.26 instead of the correct amount of $324.26. The court modified its prior affirmance to require the appellee to remit $200 or face reversal and new trial.
The court modified the judgment requiring the First National Bank of Florida to remit $200 within thirty days; if the bank failed to do so, the judgment would be reversed and a new trial awarded. If the remittitur was entered timely, the reduced judgment would stand affirmed.
“the referee who tried it inadvertently entered a judgment for five hundred and twenty-four dollars and twenty-six cents, when, it is clear from the record in the cause, the judgment should have been for three hundred and twenty four dollars and twenty-six cents — an excess of two hundred dollars beyond what the plaintiff was entitled to”
Establishes the clerical error that necessitated the court's modification of the judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePeter S. Arnau was the plaintiff in a case against First National Bank of Florida. The case was tried before a referee who entered a judgment for $524…
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 Rules Of Appellate Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
Taylor, J.:
This cause, together with three other causes, in wTiich there was the same appellee, and in which the record •of the pleadings, proofs and assignments of error were identical, was submitted to this court by agreement of •counsel upon one brief that was to be applied to all of the cases. The four causes were recently taken up at the present term and considered together and one opinion rendered disposing of the questions presented to the court in all of the cases, and none of the questions presented and assigned as error having been found in favor of the appellants, the judgments in the four cases (including the present cause) were affirmed. The appellant’s attorney in this one of the four cases thus presented and decided now applies for a rehearing, and now, for the first time, calls the attention of the court to the fact that in this cause, wherein Peter S. Arnau is appellant, the referee who tried it inadvertently entered a judgment for five hundred and twenty-four dollars and twenty-six cents, when, it is clear from the record in the cause, the judgment should have been for three hundred and twenty four dollars and twenty-six cents — an excess of two hundred dollars beyond what the plaintiff was entitled to. It is due to ourselves and to the referee who tried the cause below to say that this defect in the judgment entered in this cause was Qot called to the attention of the referee below in the motion made before him for a new trial therein; neither was it pointed out here in this court by any assignment of error, or by any mention thereof in the brief filed here by the same counsel for the appellant, who now, at this late day, after the cause has been the rounds of all the courts, makes the discovery and urges it as ground for reconsideration of the cause. We might, in strict compliance with the rules governing-appellate procedure, deny the application in toto, but the excessiveness of the judgment in this cause being patent, and the court being unwilling to visit the carelessness of counsel upon the appellant’s head, and treating the application for rehearing as one only for modification of the judgment, the judgment of the-court heretofore rendered, in so far only as it affects-the appeal of the appellant Peter S. Arnau, is hereby modified so as to require the appellee, the First National Bank of Florida, within thirty days after this order, to enter a remittitur of its judgment against Peter S. Arnau to the amount of two hundred dollars, to take effect as of the date of the rendition of such judgment; and if it shall fail or refuse so to do, then the said judgment shall be reversed and a new trial therein awarded; but if it shall enter such remittitur within the time herein prescribed, the sa.id judgment as so reduced shall stand affirmed. The application for rehearing is hereby denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Hayes, 67 Fla. 101 (Fla. 1914)…avis, 25 Fla. 917, 7 South. Rep. 29; Florida Southern R. Co. v. Steen, 45 Fla. 313, 34 South. Rep. 571; Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Seymour, 44 Fla. 557, 33 South. Rep. 424; Turner v. Adams, 39 Fla. 86, 21 South. Rep. 575; Arnau v. First Nat. Bank, 36 Fla. 395, 18 South. Rep. 790; Gunning v. Heron, 25 Fla. 846, [*110] 6 South. Rep. 855; Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Schumacher, 63 Fla. 137, 57 South. Rep. 603; Lewis v. Meginniss, 30 Fla. 419, 12 South. Rep. 19; Harrell v. Durrence, 9 Fla. 490; Atlantic Coa…
-
Nat'l Sur. Co. v. Williams, 74 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1917)…nt. Greenblatt v. McCall & Co., 67 Fla. 165, 64 South. Rep. 748; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Simon, 56 Fla. 545, 47 South. Rep. 1001, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 126, 16 Ann. Cas. 1234; Turner v. Adams, 39 Fla. 86, 21 South. Rep. 575; Arnau v. First Nat. Bank, 36 Fla. 395, 18 South. Rep. 790. If the defendant in error do within thirty days enter a remittitur for the amount of the items improperly included in the judgment, thus reducing the amount of the judgment to $5,799.25, the sum of the two items held to be with…
-
S. Fla. Farms Co. v. Stevenson, 84 Fla. 235 (Fla. 1922)…; McLean v. Spratt, 20 Fla. 515; Gunning v. Heron, 25 Fla. 846, 6 South. Rep. 855; Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. v. Davis, 25 Fla. 917, 7 South. Rep. 29; Florida Ry. & Nav. [*259] Co. v. Webster, 25 Fla. 394, 5 South. Rep. 714; Arnau v. First Nat. Bank, 36 Fla. 395, 18 South. Rep. 790; Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Seymour, 44 Fla. 557, 33 South. Rep. 424; Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Foxworth, 45 Fla. 278, 34 South. Rep. 270; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Simon, 56 Fla. 545, 47 South. Rep. 1001; Saunders Transfer C…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence