B. J. HAGLER, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN MERCER, 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.
Hagler appeals a judgment on a promissory note for $350 entered by nil dicit. The Florida Supreme Court upholds the trial court's authority to complete an unfinished judgment by inserting the damages amount after the clerk's death prevented perfection at the original term, holding that no scire facias notice was required since the defendant had already admitted the debt.
The trial court properly completed the judgment. No scire facias notice was required because the defendant had already admitted the debt by withdrawing his plea and defaulting. The calculation of interest and insertion of damages was a ministerial act that could be completed by the clerk's successor without additional court direction.
“It was but to complete that which had been left undone at the previous term through a dispensation of Providence, and not through the fault or laches of the party.”
Establishes that the court properly completed an unfinished judgment when delay resulted from circumstances beyond the parties' control.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMercer sued Hagler on a promissory note for $350. Hagler filed a plea but withdrew it. Judgment was entered by nil dicit (by defendant's default/silen…
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 Assessment Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
BALTZELL, C. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
John Mercer instituted his action to recover of the defendant Hagler the sum due on a promissory note for $350. The defendant filed a plea, which having been withdrawn, judgment was given by nil elicit, and a writ of enquiry was awarded to the clerk to assess the damages. This was at April term, 1854. At that term the clerk died during the session of the court, having, however, entered a judgment formally, omitting and leaving a blank for the damages and amount as well as that of the costs, which it is admitted was not perfected on account of his death. At the next term, on application to the court, a judgment was entered, on motion, to supply this deficiency, inserting the amount due after an assessment by the clerk and completing the judgment as originally designed to be entered-
We have no hesitancy in saying that the court was right in granting the order asked for. It was but to complete that which had been left undone at the previous term through a dispensation of Providence, and not through the fault or laches of the party. The order was to the clerk to assess the damages and enter judgment. He omitted to assess the damages, and without this could not enter the judgment. The order, then, was unexecuted, and remained as a duty to be performed, without any further direction of the court, by his successor. Nor was it necessary to give notice by scire facias to defendant. He had already admitted the debt in the declaration, the amount of the note, to be due. The addition of the interest to the principal—matter of calculation merely and purely ministerial in its character—was all that was required to ascertain the amount for which judg. m§nt should be entered. This calculation is not made on motion of the party; it is usually by the plaintiff’s attorney for the clerk, or by himself without aid.
We have spoken of the judgment in this case as by nil dicit, and this is its proper appellation, although the term default is used in the order. The defendant had withdrawn his plea, and said nothing further—hence the judgment was against him. The substance is to be regarded, and not the form, in considering questions of this nature. There are two judgments in the record: one entering the judgment as of the date of the 8th of November, 1854, to which our remarks are addressed, and which is the judgment directed to be affirmed; the other is an entry of judgment nunc pro tunc, which it will be the duty of the judge below to order to be vacated.
The judgment will be affirmed with costs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Fla. Dev. Co. & O. M. Crosby v. The Polk Cnty. Nat'l Bank, 76 Fla. 629 (Fla. 1919)…the statute in 1895, and which through the neglect of the clerk had not been entered on the record. Third persons, it is understood, cannot be injured by the court’s action. See 1 Black on Judgments (2nd ed.), p. 190. The case of Hagler v. Mercer, 6 Fla. 721, is in some respects not unlike the one at bar. There judgment was [*638] given by nil dicit, the defendant withdrew his plea and said nothing. A writ of inquiry was issued to the clerk to assess damages, he entered a judgment formally, but left a b…
-
Hyer's Executors v. Caro's Executrix, 18 Fla. 694 (Fla. 1882)
-
On Rehearing, 98 Fla. 638 (Fla. 1929)…under the circumstances, is clearly a ministerial misprision which it is the legitimate function of an order nunc pro tunc to remedy. Florida Development Co. v. Polk Co. Nat’l Bank, 76 Fla. 629, 80 So R. 560; 34 C. J. 71, et seq.; Hagler v. Mercer, 6 Fla. 721; Davidson v. Richardson, 91 Pac. R. 1080; 17 L. R. A. (U. S.) 319; Jett v. Farmer’s Bank, 76 So. W. R. 385; In re: Est. of Emma Cook, 1 L. R. A. 567; 1 Black on Judgt. (2nd Ed.) p. 190; [*647] 15 Encyc. P. & P. 244. See also Moran v. Coffin, 241 So.…