MIDLAND MOTOR CAR CO.
v.
WILLYS-OVERLAND, INC.
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 quashed a writ of certiorari, affirming a lower court's decision to reverse a judgment that had sustained a demurrer to a plea of privilege. The court found the lower court's ruling to be in accordance with the essential requirements of law.
No, the Circuit Court did not err. Its judgment reversing the lower court's decision was in accordance with the essential requirements of the law.
“Though the judgment of the Circuit Court reverses and remands the cause and does not finally dispose of the controversy, the discretionary writ of certiorari was issued herein because the judgment of the Circuit Court directed the trial court to allow pleas to be filed in the cause, which ruling, if erroneous, would require the trial court to proceed in violation of the essential requirements of the law in the ultimate judgment to be rendered.”
Justification for issuing the writ of certiorari despite the non-final nature of the Circuit Court's judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Civil Court of Record sustained a demurrer to a plea of privilege in abatement, rendering a judgment against the defendant. The Circuit Court reve…
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 Demurrer cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of certiorari herein is addressed to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Dade County reversing a judgment quodrecuperet rendered by the Civil Court of Record of that County upon sustaining a demurrer to a plea of privilege in abatement of the action.
Though the judgment of the Circuit Court reverses and remands the cause and does not finally dispose of the controversy, the discretionary writ of certiorari was issued herein because the judgment of the Circuit Court directed the trial court to allow pleas to be filed in the cause, which ruling, if erroneous, would require the trial court to *Page 838 proceed in violation of the essential requirements of the law in the ultimate judgment to be rendered.
The plea of privilege did not fail on an issue of fact as in the case of Bishop vs. Camp, 39 Fla. 517, 22 So. 735, but was overruled on demurrer which required a judgment of quodrespondeat ouster, that the defendant answer over, as held by the Circuit Court, 1 Encyclopedia Pleading Practice 30, 1 Tidds Practice 641; Painter Fertilizer Company vs. DuPont,54 Fla. 288, 45 So. 507.
The judgment of the Circuit Court reversing the judgment of the Civil Court of Record accords with the essential requirements of the law. Therefore, the writ of certiorari is quashed.
WHITFIELD, P.J., AND TERRELL AND BUFORD, J.J., concur. STRUM, C.J., AND ELLIS AND BROWN, concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Janet Realty Corp. v. Hoffman's Inc., 154 Fla. 144 (Fla. 1943)…ciated by this Court in the recent case of Goodkind v. Wolkowsky, supra, is nothing more or less than a re-affirmance of the well established rule recognized by this Court in its adjudicated cases. See Midland Motor Car Co. v. Willys-Overland, Inc., 101 Fla. 837, 132 So. 692; Edwards v. Knight, 100 Fla. 1704, 132 So. 459; Brinson v. Tharin, 99 Fla. 696, 127 So. 313; American Ry. Exp. Co. v. Weatherford, 86 Fla. 626, 98 So. 820; American Ry. Exp. Co. v. Weatherford, 84 Fla. 264, 93 So. 740; First Nat. Bank o…
-
Patten v. Daoud, 152 Fla. 448 (Fla. 1943)…ic provision to review interlocutory orders in common law cases by certiorari but we have many times reviewed such orders in this manner. Ulsch v. Mountain City Mill Co., 103 Fla. 932, 138 So. 483; Midland Motor Car Company v. Willys-Overland, Inc., 101 Fla. 837, 132 So. 692; Kilgore v. Bird, et al., 149 Fla. 570, 6 So. (2nd) 541; Bloomhuff v. Miami Jockey Club, 150 Fla. 411, 7 So. (2nd) 447. These cases are different from the case at bar in that they involve instances in which the trial court proceeded co…
-
Grodin v. Ry. Express Agency, 116 Fla. 378 (Fla. 1934)…rection to the court below to proceed in violation of some essential requirement of the law in the ultimate judgment required to be rendered pursuant to the appellate court’s directions in its mandate. Midland Motor Car Co. v. Willys-Overland, Ins., 101 Fla. 837, 132 Sou. Rep. 692. [*380] In the' present case, which is not yét concluded in the lower courts, all the propositions of law already passed on. by the Circuit Court in its judgment of reversal, will still-remain in the record of -the entire proceedi…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence