E. E. ROPES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
C. W. LANSING AND J. J. CURRY, LATE COPARTNERS DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF LANSING & CURRY, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
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 a writ of error because the judgment being challenged was not final, as the case remained pending against the other defendant (Curry). The court held that a judgment dismissing claims against only one codefendant, while the case continues against another, cannot serve as the basis for a timely writ of error.
The writ of error must be dismissed because the judgment dismissing the case as to Lansing was not a final judgment. A judgment affecting only one party in a multi-party suit, while the case remains pending against others, cannot support a writ of error.
“This, however, was not a final judgment, as the case was still pending as to Curry, so far as this order could affect the status of the parties.”
Establishes the court's holding that a judgment dismissing claims against one codefendant is not final when the case continues against another defendant.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRopes sued Lansing and Curry as copartners in assumpsit. After defendants defaulted, final judgment was entered against both on September 2, 1899. On …
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 Demurrer cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff in error sued' the defendants in error as copartners in an action of assumpsit. The defendants appeared in the suit and thereafter defaults were entered by the clerk against them for want of plea, answer or demurrer. On September 2nd, 1899, the plaintiff filed his proofs and the clerk entered a final judgment thereon in his favor against C. W. Lansing and J. J. Curry, late copartners doing business under the name and style of Lansing & Curry.
On November 14th, 1899, more than sixty days after the entry of final judgment, the defendant Lansing moved the court to vacate the judgment, which motion the court granted on the same day it was filed, and the defendant Lansing demurred to the declaration. This demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiff amended his declaration. The amended declaration was demurred to by Lansing, and on November 22nd, 1901, the court sustained the demurrer, and dismissed the case as to Lansing.
On April 22nd, 1902, the plaintiff sued out of writ of error to this court. The writ of error was not sued out within six months of the date upon which the court granted defendant Lansing’s motion to open up the final judgment against the copartnership (Einstein’s Sons et al. v. Davidson, admx., 35 Fla. 342, text 351, 17 South. Rep. 563), but was taken within six months from the date on which the court dismissed the case as to Lansing, and that judgment doubtless was the basis upon which the writ of error issued. This, however, was not a final judgment, as the case was still pending as to Curry, so far as this order could affect the status of the parties. Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 148 U. S. 262, text 264, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 590, and cases therein cited.
The writ of error is dismissed at the cost of the plaintiff in error. Taylor, C. J., and Hooker and Shackleford, JJ., concur. Carter, P. J., and Maxwell and Cockrell, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stewart v. Codrington, 55 Fla. 327 (Fla. 1908)…y a single writ of error. A final judgment is said to' be one which concludes all the necessary parties on the merits in a cause, and such a judgment is necessary to support a writ of error. It was held by this court in the case of Ropes v. Lansing, 46 Fla. 231, 35 South. Rep. 863, that “where there are two coMefendants to a suit, and one of them demurs to the declaration, and upon the sustaining of such demurrer the suit is dismissed as to such demurring defendant, but is still pending as to the other def…
-
Evin R. Welch & Co., Inc. v. Johnson, 138 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…es involving multiple claims or multiple parties if the trial court earmarks the judgment as final by expressly determining that there is no just reason for delay and expressly directing the entry of judgment. In the case of Ropes v. Lansing, 1903, 46 Fla. 231, 35 So. 863, the plaintiff had sued two co-partners in assumpsit. On demurrer, the case was dismissed as against one defendant and plaintiff appealed. The Court held that since the cause was still pending against the other defendant the judgment was…
-
Hyman Schneider v. Manheimer, 170 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…a petition for writ of certiorari will lie to a common law order final as between the plaintiff and one of several defendants but which leaves the cause pending as to other defendants. We must begin our discussion with the case of Ropes v. Lansing, 46 Fla. 231, 35 So. 863 (1903). The Ropes case was an assumpsit action against two defendants as co-partners. One partner was granted an order dismissing him from the cause. On appeal the order was held not final. From this holding it is argued that under the l…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 148 U.S. 262 (U.S. 1893)
- Sons v. Davidson, 35 Fla. 342 (Fla. 1895)