BIRMINGHAM TRUST & SAVINGS COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JACKSON COUNTY MILL COMPANY, DEFENDANT 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 lower court's judgment, which only awarded costs to the defendant after a jury verdict, was not a final judgment sufficient to support an appeal.
No, a judgment for costs alone is not a final judgment that will support a writ of error.
“It appears from the record that on June 13th, 1901, a trial was had, and that the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant.”
Establishes the procedural posture of the case at the trial level.
Previewing 1 of 4 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error, Birmingham Trust & Savings Company, sued the defendant in error, Jackson County Mill Company, in an action of assumpsit. A jur…
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 Assumpsit cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This was an action of assumpsit instituted by plaintiff in error against defendant in error in the Circuit Court of Jackson county. It appears from the record that on June 13th, 1901, a trial was had, and that the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant. Thereupon the following judgment was entered: “It is, therefore, considered by the court and it is the judgment of the court that the said Jackson County Mill Company, a corporation, do have and recover of and from the said plaintiff Birmingham Trust' & Savings Co., corporation, the costs here taxed in the sum of forty and 77-100 dollars, to-be levied of the lands and tenements, goods and chattels of said plaintiff to defendant rendered, and that execution issue therefor.” This is the only entry purporting to be a final judgment.
In Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353, 33 South. Rep. 982, and Haynes v. Bramlett, 46 Fla. supra, 35 Sputh. Rep. 3, it was held that a judgment for costs alone, though entered for defendant after the jury have found a verdict in his favor, is not such final judgment as will support a writ of error. The judgment here entered is not, under the authority of said cited cases, such a final judgment as will support the writ of error here taken, and the writ must, therefore, be dismissed, and it is so ordered, at the cost of plaintiff in error. Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford and Hooker, JJ., concur. Carter, J., concurs in the opinion.
Carter and Maxwell, JJ., disqualified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dexter v. Seaboard Air Line Railway, 52 Fla. 250 (Fla. 1906)…d a verdict in his favor, is not such a final judgment as will support a writ of error. Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353, 33 South. Rep. 982; Haynes v. Bramlett, 46 Fla. 348, 35 South. Rep. 3; Birmingham Trust & Savings Co. v. Jackson County Mill Co., 46 Fla. 236, 35 South. Rep. 877; Cobb v. County of Santa Rosa, 47 Fla. 135, 36 South. Rep. 172; Gray v. Mann, 47 Fla. 162, 37 South. Rep. 161. The entry here that “it is upon consideration ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that the defendant. Seaboard…
-
Cobb v. Cnty. of Santa Rosa, 47 Fla. 135 (Fla. 1904)…s expended in and about their suit.” Such a judgment will not support a writ of error. Hall v. Paterson, 45 Fla. 353, 33 South. Rep. 982; Haynes v. Bramlett, 46 Fla. 348, 35 South. Rep. 3; Birmingham Trust & Sav. Co. v. Jackson County Mill Company, 46 Fla. 236, 35 South. Rep. —. Writ of error dismissed. All-concur, except Taylor, C. J., absent on account of sickness.…
-
Gray v. Mann, 47 Fla. 162 (Fla. 1904)…udgment was entered for costs only. Such judgment will not support a writ of error. Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353, 33 South. Rep. 982; Haynes v. Bramlett, 46 Fla. 348, 35 South. Rep. 3; Birmingham Trust & Savings Co. v. Jackson County Mill Company, 46 Fla. 236, 35 South. Rep. 877; Cobb v. County of Santa Rosa, 47 Fla. 135, 36 South. Rep. — . Writ dismissed. Taylor, C. J., and Hocker and Cockrell, JJ., concur. Carter, P. J., and Shackleford and Whitfield, JJ., concur in the opinion.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Callie Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353 (Fla. 1903)