W. H. MULLEN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
R. J. CAMP AND B. F. CAMP, PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS UNDER AND BY THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF R. J. & B. F. CAMP, 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 affirmed a judgment for plaintiffs in an assumpsit action against W. H. Mullen but reversed and remanded the ancillary attachment proceedings, holding that the evidence did not support the jury's finding that plaintiffs had reason to believe the defendant would fraudulently dissipate his property before judgment.
The Court held that while the evidence supported the verdict for plaintiffs in the assumpsit action and that judgment was properly affirmed, the evidence did not support the jury's finding regarding fraudulent dissipation of property necessary to justify the attachment. Accordingly, the attachment proceedings were reversed and remanded for a new trial on that issue.
“The evidence, however, is sufficient to support the verdict for the plaintiffs in the assumpsit action.”
Establishes that the Court found adequate evidentiary support for the main assumpsit judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR. J. & B. F. Camp sued W. H. Mullen in assumpsit and also sued out attachment proceedings against him. The case involved both the main assumpsit acti…
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 Ancillary Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
[*235] Cockrell, J.
The defendants in error began an action in assumpsit by an ordinary summons against the plaintiff in error, and as ancillary thereto sued out attachment proceedings. . On motion formal pleadings were made up and the several issues raised by the traverse of the affidavit and the pleas to the declaration in assumpsit were tried together before the court and a jury in vacation. Upon all the issues so raised the jury found for the plaintiffs and judgment was entered in accordance with such findings.
No assignments upon the law of the case as passed upon by the court below are presented to us in such sort that we can say that reversal-compelling error was committed ; but we do feel called upon to hold that the evidence' does not support the finding of the jury that the plaintiffs had reason to believe that the defendant would fraudulently part with his property before judgment could be obtained against him. It would be profitless to set out the evidence in this opinion. The evidence, however, is sufficient to support the verdict for the plaintiffs in the assumpsit action.
The ancillary attachment proceedings and the main action are so far several under the practice prevailing in this State that we may reverse the former and affirm the latter. Forbes v. Porter, 25 Fla. 362, 6 South. Rep. 62; Jeffreys v. Coleman, 20 Fla. 536; Williams v. Hutchinson, 26 Fla. 513, 7 South. Rep. 852.
The cause is reversed and remanded with directions to the court below to grant a new trial as to the second traverse in attachment, i. e., as to the reason to believe that the said Mullen would fraudulently part with his property before judgment could be obtained against him. The judgment in the main case is affirmed.
Carter, P. J., and Maxwell, J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Hooker and Shackleford, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pleasant Valley Farms & Morey Condensery Co. v. Carl, 90 Fla. 420 (Fla. 1925)…ved by a final judgment or decree he may appeal. The doctrine as announced in that case, as applied to appeals from orders dissolving attachments, was followed by this Court in Williams v. Hutchinson, 26 Fla. 513, 7 South. Rep. 852; Mullen v. Camp, 46 Fla. 234, 35 South. Rep. 402. In the latter case the Court said that the ancillary attachment proceedings and the main action are severable so that judgment may be reversed in one and affirmed in the other. The statute relating to writs of garnishment make…
-
State Rd. Dep't of the State of Fla. v. Crill, 99 Fla. 1012 (Fla. 1930)…it of error will lie thereto under the statute.” The “decisions of this Court” referred to in the foregoing quotation were rendered in the cases of Jeffreys v. Coleman, 20 Fla. 536; Williams v. Hutchinson, 26 Fla. 513, 7 So. R. 852; Mullen v. Camp, 46 Fla. 234, 35 So. R. 402. The Court in those cases recognized the principle that in actions of assumpsit and attachment proceedings ancilliary thereto, a writ of error will lie to an order dissolving or dismissing the attachment, and also, that the main actio…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Hutchinson, 26 Fla. 513 (Fla. 1890)
- Jeffreys v. Coleman, 20 Fla. 536 (Fla. 1884)
- H. D. Forbes & Bro. v. Porter, 25 Fla. 362 (Fla. 1889)