JOSEPH N. CLINTON, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM A. COLCLOUGH, APPELLEE
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.
Joseph N. Clinton appealed an order declaring an execution legal and a judgment against him on his bond in an affidavit of illegality proceeding. The Florida Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that proceedings on affidavits of illegality are statutory proceedings at law requiring review by writ of error, not appeal, and Clinton failed to pursue the proper remedy.
The court held that affidavits of illegality of execution constitute original statutory proceedings at law, not continuations of equity proceedings, and can only be reviewed by writ of error under section 1690 of the General Statutes, not by appeal. Since Clinton did not issue a writ of error, the appeal must be dismissed.
“Even though the execution alleged to be illegal had issued upon a deficiency decree in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding in equity, (the filing of an affidavit of illegality of the execution and the action of the court thereon constitute an original statutory proceeding at law and are not a continuation of the foreclosure proceedings in equity.”
Establishes that affidavits of illegality create separate statutory proceedings at law, regardless of the source of the execution
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClinton filed an affidavit of illegality in the circuit court challenging an execution issued on a deficiency decree from a mortgage foreclosure proce…
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 Writ Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
— On December 3rd, 1906, Joseph N. Clinton filed an affidavit in the circuit court for Alachua county under section 1624 et seq. of the General Statutes of Florida alleging the illegality of an execution issued on a deficiency decree entered against said Clinton in a mortgage foreclosure proceedings in equity in the same court. Bond was given, a motion made by Colclough the plaintiff in execution to set the affidavit aside and to declare the execution legal, was granted by the court, and judgment was entered against Joseph N. Clinton the defendant in execution and the surety on the bond as provided by the statute. Joseph N. Clinton alone entered an appeal from the order declaring the execution to be legal and from the judgment entered against Clinton and the surety on the bond given in the^ proceedings on affidavit of illegality.
The proceeding taken by Clinton was not an application to the court from which the execution issued to control its own process. See Barnett v. Hickson, 52 Fla. 457, 41 South. Rep. 606; section 1625 General Statutes of Florida of 1906.
By special statutory provisions an affidavit of illegality and proceeding thereon may be had when the legality of an execution is thereby properly brought into question. The proceedings are purely statutory and are at law and not in equity. Even though the execution alleged to be illegal had issued upon a deficiency decree in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding in equity, (the filing of an affidavit of illegality of the execution and the action of the court thereon constitute an original statutory proceeding at law and are not a continuation of the foreclosure proceedings in equity.
The only appeals allowed by the statutes from orders and judgments entered by the circuit courts and circuit judges are from decrees and orders in equity and. probate causes. Secs. 1710, 1906 et seq. General Statutes of 1906; Finch v. Bonar, 46 Fla. 246, 35 South. Rep. 189; Montgomery v. Thomas, 40 Fla. 450, 25 South. Rep. 62. Section. 1690 of the General Statutes of 1906 pro* vides that “all proceedings to procure review by an appellate court of the proceedings of a lower court in cases at law shall be by writ of error, except in cases where certiorari or prohibition shall lie, or where it shall be otherwise expressly provided.” This case is not within any of the exceptions of the statute, and there is no other provision for reviewing the proceedings on affidavit of illegality of execution under the statute. This being -so the only proper proceeding for reviewing the orders and judgments made under such special statutory provisions is by writ of error; Heebner v. Orange City, 44 Fla. 159, 32 South. Rep. 879; Trabue v. Williams, 46 Fla. 228, 35 South. Rep. 872.
As no writ of error appears to have been issued in this cause and as the appeal entered gives this court no jurisdiction of the cause, the appeal must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.
Shackleford, C. J., and Cockrell, J., concur;
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S. Fla. Lumber & Supply Co. v. Payton R. Read, 65 Fla. 61 (Fla. 1913)…he proper remedy. This motion was denied on the 17th of December, 1912, without an opinion, and, as the defendant in error seems at a loss to understand upon what grounds our decision was based, we would refer to our holding in Clinton v. Colclough, 54 Fla. 520, 44 South Rep 878, and Hayes v. Frohock, 56 Fla. 794, 47 South. Rep. 343, which would seem to be decisive of the point. It is also contended here that certain irregularities appear in connection with the bill of exceptions, but we shall pass this po…
-
Earle B. Allison v. Handy Andy Cmty. Stores, Inc., 106 Fla. 274 (Fla. 1932)…al. vs. Yon et al., 8 Fla. 350; Dibble v. Truluck, 12 Fla. 185; Barnett v. Hickson, 52 Fla. 457, 41 So. 606; [*275] Lewter v. Hadley, 68 Fla. 131, 66 So. 567; Sutton et al. v. Bank of Mulberry, 83 Fla. 4, 90 So. 539. See also Clinton v. Colclough., 54 Fla. 520, 44 So. 878; Southern Home Ins. Co. v. Faulkner, 57 Fla. 194, 49 So. 542. In Edenfield v. Sayre et al., 81 Fla. 367, 88 So. 607, the inequitable conduct of the plaintiff in the law action afforded a ground for equitable relief. Reversed. Whitfield…
-
Jones v. The Escambia Land & Mfg. Co., 55 Fla. 783 (Fla. 1908)…other cases where statutory remedies are given, and it is not expressly provided that the method of reviewing orders made therein shall be by appeal—then the only manner of obtaining a review by this court is by writ of error. Clinton v. Colclough, 54 Fla. 520, 44 South. Rep. 878; Heebner v. Orange City, 44 Fla. 159, 32 South. Rep. 879. In the case of Campbell v. Skinner Mfg. Co., 53 Fla. 632, 43 South. Rep. 874, the remedy by writ of error in such a case is recognized. The sections of the General Statut…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bion H. Barnett v. Hickson, 52 Fla. 457 (Fla. 1906)
- Heebner v. Town of Orange City, 44 Fla. 159 (Fla. 1902)
- Lucina Augusta Finch v. Bonar, 46 Fla. 246 (Fla. 1903)
- Montgomery v. Thomas, 40 Fla. 450 (Fla. 1898)
- Trabue v. Williams, 46 Fla. 228 (Fla. 1903)