MARION B. JENNINGS AND WIFE, PETITIONERS,
v.
PAUL C. ALBRITTON, CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE 27TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, RESPONDENT
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 held that process issued under the new 1931 Chancery Act was valid even if the bill of complaint was filed before the Act became effective, as long as the process was issued and served after the Act's effective date.
Yes, the service of process was legal. The court found that process issued and served after the effective date of the 1931 Chancery Act was valid, regardless of when the underlying bill of complaint was filed.
“The Court is of the opinion that this service of process issued in the form fixed by the “1931 Chancery Act” was legal since it was issued and served after October 1, 1931, notwithstanding the bill of complaint was filed before the new act took effect.”
Establishes the court's holding regarding the validity of the process.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA bill of complaint was filed on August 25, 1931. No valid process was issued or served under the old statute. On October 8, 1931, after the new 1931 …
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.
In this case a bill of complaint in chancery, was filed in the Circuit Court of Sarasota County on August 25, 1931. At that time the process which the statute prescribed was the form designated by Section 4893 C. G. L., 3109 R. G. S. No process under that section was ever issued or served on the defendants,'—a decree pro confesso based on purported service having been set aside by the Court.
On October 1, 1931, Chapter 14658, Acts of 1931, commonly known and cited as “1931 Chancery Act” became effective. On October 8th, 1931, chancery process in the form prescribed by the “1931 Chancery Act” was issued on the bill of complaint which had been filed on August 25th, 1931, before the new chancery act became effective. *1068This process was returned as having been served on the defendant on October 16, 1931.
The Court is of the opinion that this service of process issued in the form fixed by the “1931 Chancery Act” was legal since it was issued and served after October 1, 1931, notwithstanding the bill of complaint was filed before the new act took effect.
Application for writ of prohibition denied.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Berger v. Mabry, 113 Fla. 31 (Fla. 1933)…f stock ownership of shares of stock in the bank at the time the bank closed, are enforceable as .against those who, at the time the bank closed, appeared ■on its records to be stockholders of the defunct bank. [*39] Treadwell v. Riley, 106 Fla. 68, 138 Sou. Rep. 757, 142 Sou. Rep. 817. The plea, therefore, being one in confession and avoidance, was insufficient to constitute a defense, because the avoidance of the plea is not co-extensive with the confession. Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Peters, 72 Fla. 311, 7…
-
Treadwell v. J. E. Riley for the State Bank of Boca Grande, 138 So. 757 (Fla. 1932)…On Rehearing. Per Curiam. This ease is before us on a rehearing after the previous judgment was affirmed. See foregoing opinion, reported in 138 Sou. Rep. 757. The petition for re-hearing suggests that the Court overlooked and failed to consider that Section 3 of Chapter 13576 of the Laws of Florida, 1929, was not in force and effect at the time of the closing of t'he bank on February 22, 1929. Section 3…