JAMES H. HAYES, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN FROHOCK, SHERIFF, AND DOTY & STOWE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
James H. Hayes sought to enjoin a sheriff's sale of real estate under an execution issued from a Duval County judgment. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal, holding that equity will not enjoin execution sales when the execution's legality has already been adjudicated in statutory proceedings at law and no writ of error was taken.
Equity will not enjoin the sale of real estate under an execution where the legality of the execution has been adjudicated in proceedings at law (affidavit of illegality) and no independent equity is shown. Such statutory proceedings at law may be reviewed by writ of error, not through equity.
“Equity will not enjoin the sale of real estate under an execution where the legality of the execution has been adjudicated in proceedings at law taken for that purpose by the defendant in execution, and no independent equity is shown.”
States the governing legal principle that equity courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin executions when their legality has been determined through statutory proceedings at law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHayes was sued by Doty & Stowe Company in Duval County Court for a claim under $500. Hayes appeared and filed pleas in abatement and in bar. A judgmen…
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.
The appellant, James H. Hayes, brought a suit in equity in the Circuit Court for Dade County to enjoin the sheriff from making a sale of real estate situated in Dade county under an execution issued from the Oircuit Court for Dade county upon a judgment obtained by the Doty & Stowe Company against Hayes in the County Court for Dhval county. The bill of complaint alleges that the judgment of the county court for Duval county upon which the execution issued, is void because the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties. An injunction bond appears in the transcript indicating-that an injunction was issued' as prayed. The defendants by answer aver that the amount of the claim on which, judgment was obtained was less .than $500.00 and within the jurisdiction of the court; that the defendant Hayes, appeared in the cause and filled pleas both in abatement and in bar; that a transcript of the judgment of the County Count of Duval county was recorded in Dade county, upon which execution issued from the Circuit Court for Dade county in accordance with the statutes; that the legality of the execution was determined by the circuit court for Dade county under the statute, and that no writ of error thereto was taken. Copies of the affidavit and judgment in the proceeding's to determine the legality of the execution were filed with the answer. The court dissolved the injunction and dismissed the bill, stating that the matters set forth in the bill of complaint had been already ' adjudicated in a proceeding-upon an affidavit of illegality. An appeal was taken by Hayes.
Equity will not enjoin the sale of real estate under an execution where the legality of the execution has been adjudicated in proceedings at law taken for that purpose by the defendant in execution, and no independent equity is shown. The statute provides that the court before which an execution is returnable, may upon stated proceedings and for good cause, direct a stay of the same, and the suspension of proceedings thereon. Section 1624 Gen. Stats.; Houston v. Bradford, 35 Fla. 490, 17 South. Rep. 664. The proceeding upon affidavit! of illegality being statutory and at law may be reviewed by writ of error. Clinton v. Colclough. 54 Fla. 520, 44 South. Rep. 878. See also the remedy afforded by section 1625 Gen. Stats.; Barnett v. Hickson, 52 Fla. 457, 41 South. Rep. 606.
It appears that the legality of the execution was determined under the statutory proceedings and no writ of error was taken to the judgment of the co-urt dismissing the proceedings. The matter is res ad judicata by the proceeding at law taken by the defendant in execution, who cannot have such proceeding reviewed in equity.
The decree is 'affirmed.
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)…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 point. Strictly speaking, we doubt if any bill of excep…
-
Fla. Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm'n v. Wakulla Fishermen's Ass'n, Inc., 141 So. 3d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ence rule, that “[ejquity, although not as inflexible as the law, is nevertheless administered within established limits and upon recognized principles” and “must follow the law unless some recognized principle permits otherwise”); Hayes v. Frohock, 56 Fla. 794, 47 So. 343, 343 (1908) (affirming circuit court’s dissolution of an injunction that had enjoined the sale of real estate under an execution because it appeared the “legality of the execution was determined under the statutory proceedings, ... no wr…
-
Mast v. Baker, 69 Fla. 585 (Fla. 1915)…at the sheriff, who is made the sole defendant, was not a necessary, and probably not even a proper, party defendant. See Alston v. Rowles, 13 Fla. 110, text 116, and Fairchild v. Knight, 18 Fla. 770, text 788. No point was made in Hayes v. Frohock, 56 Fla. 794, 47 South. Rep. 343, as to the joinder of the sheriff as a party defendant with the plaintiff in execution, so that the matter was not discussed. We would also refer to Olin v. Hungerford, 10 Ohio 268, text 272; Edney v. King, 4 Iredell Eq. (N. C.)…
Authorities Cited
- Bion H. Barnett v. Hickson, 52 Fla. 457 (Fla. 1906)
- Clinton v. Colclough, 54 Fla. 520 (Fla. 1907)
- Houstoun v. Bradford & Ross, 35 Fla. 490 (Fla. 1895)