R. H. MITCHELL, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ST. PETERSBURG & GULF RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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 challenging a jury verdict of "not guilty" in a negligence action because the judgment entered was not final, addressing only costs rather than the merits of the plaintiff's claim.
A judgment for costs alone, without adjudication of the merits, is not a final judgment that will support a writ of error, even when the jury has found a verdict in the defendant's favor. The judgment in this case lacks the necessary express adjudication that the plaintiff take nothing by his complaint or similar final disposition of the plaintiff's claim.
“a judgment for costs alone, the merits not being adjudicated, 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”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that costs-only judgments without merit adjudication are not final and cannot be reviewed by writ of error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff brought a civil action for damages against the defendant railroad company for personal injuries allegedly caused by the defendant's negl…
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
Taylor, J.
The plaintiff in error as plaintiff below instituted his action for damages in the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County .against the defendant in error as defendant below for personal injuries sustained, as ’alleged, through the defendants negligence. The trial resulted in the following verdict: “We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty, so say we all.” And upon this verdict the following was entered as the judgment in the cause: “Whereupop it is ordered that the defendant be acquitted and that 'the defendant do have and recover of the plaintiff its costs in this behalf expended to be taxed by the clerk.” For review of the trial thus resulting the plaintiff below brings the case here by writ of error. It is settled here as elsewhere that a judgment for costs alone, the merits not being adjudicated, though entered for defendant after the jpry have found a verdict in his favor, is not such final judgment as will support a writ of error. Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353, 33 South. Rep. 982, and cases therein cited.
We think the attempted judgment entered in this case falls within the principle above announced. It is true that it contains the words “it is ordered that the defend ant be acquitted,” but there is 'no adjudication therein as to the plaintiff or his complaint except that he is adjudged to pay the costs. There is no adjudication that the plaintiff shall take nothing by his plaint, or that the defendant shall go hence without day. The word “acquitted” is more properly applicable' to criminal trials and has no proper application to a civil suit. There being no express adjudication here of the plaintiff’s claim it would become very questionable but that the plaintiff under such a judgment might not file an amended declaration alleging a new element of negligence on the defendant’s part as having caused the injury, and do so successfully free from the claim of res ad judicata. Our conclusion being that the judgment brought here in the record is not such a final judgment as will support a writ of error it follows that the writ of error herein must be and is hereby dismissed at the cost of the plaintiff in error. . Hocicer and Park hill, JJ., concur. Shackleford, C. J., and Cockrell and Whitfield, J J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emory Catchings v. Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co., 101 Fla. 792 (Fla. 1931)…ersburg, 58 Fla. 340, 50 So. 414; Milteer v. S. A. L. Ry Co., 65 Fla. 357, 61 So. 749; Young v. Lassiter et al., 87 Fla. 445, 100 So. 362; Flynn-Harris-Bullard Co. v. Hampton et al., 70 Fla. 231, 70 So. 385; Mitchell v. St. Petersburg & Gulf R. Co., 56 Fla. 497, 47 So. 794. Dismissed. Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur. Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.…
-
Bell v. Niles, 61 Fla. 114 (Fla. 1911)
-
Dallam v. Sanchez, 56 Fla. 779 (Fla. 1908)…v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353, 33 South. Rep. 982; Dexter and Connor v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 52 Fla. 250, 42 South. Rep. 695; McGeachy v. Bush, 55 Fla. 340, 45 South. Rep. 848 and authorities there cited; Mitchell v. St. Petersburg & Gulf Ry. Co., 56 Fla. 497, 47 South. Rep. 794, for a discussion as to the essentials of a final judgment. Lincoln v. Cross, 11 Wis. 91, and McTavish v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 8 N. Dak. 333, 79 N. W. Rep. 443, will also be found to bear upon the point. Various and sundry Ob…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)