EAST COAST LUMBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
v.
THE ELLIS-YOUNG COMPANY, A CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR; THE ELLIS-YOUNG COMPANY, A CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. EAST COAST LUMBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
EAST COAST LUMBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
THE ELLIS-YOUNG COMPANY, A CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR; THE ELLIS-YOUNG COMPANY, A CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. EAST COAST LUMBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
50 Fla. 215
Florida Supreme Court (1905)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
These cases are controlled by the decision this day rendered in Putnam Lumber Company v. The Ellis-Young Company. There is, however, an additional reason why the pleas herein should have been stricken. Before filing the pleas as to jurisdiction over the person, the defendant came into court and asked for and obtained an order staying the proceedings until a bill of particulars could be furnished. This was a clear recognition of the court’s jurisdiction over the person of the defendant which it was thereby and thereafter estopped to deny.
All the justices concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rorick v. Foster, 101 Fla. 4 (Fla. 1931)…, whatever the defendant may choose to denominate his act. Britton v. Goodman, 126 N. E. 767, 235 Mass. 471; Brown v. Shields, 41 Fed. (2nd) 542; Carpenter v. Miller, 56 So. 845, 2 Ala. App. 373; East Coast Lumber Co. v. Ellis-Young Co., 39 So. 197, 50 Fla. 215; Oppenheimer v. Guckenheimer, 15 So. 670, 34 Fla. 13; Dudley v. White, 31 So. 830; 44 Fla. 264; Driscoll v. Tillman, 165 Wis. 245, 161 N. W. 795. And in such cases the Court is authorized to hold that the defendant °is in court for all purposes. Sca…
-
Ortell v. Ortell, 91 Fla. 50 (Fla. 1926)…g of an act in the progress of the cause and in recognition of the jurisdiction of the court over her person, which would have been equivalent to a general appearance. See 4 C. J. 1339, and cases cited; also East Coast Lumber Co. v. Ellis-Young Co., 50 Fla. 215. But after having appeared specially to quash the service and to question the jurisdiction [*59] of the court to proceed further against her, (and especially after notice of appeal had been entered,) it would appear by the weight of authority in thi…
-
State v. Simmons, 104 Fla. 487 (Fla. 1932)…certiorari. It is clear that the Act in question, being in derogation or supplementary to tho'se powers exercised pursuant to the granting of a common law writ of certiorari, must be strictly construed. See East Coast Lumber Co. v. Ellis-Young Co., 50 Fla. 215; 39 So. 197; Weeks v. Johnston, 85 Fla. 248, 95 So. 670. It seems, therefore, that the writ of certiorari, grantable under the statute here in question, is merely made the medium by which the record is required to be sent up to a circuit court; and…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence