J. M. BELL, SHERIFF, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
MELISSA NILES, 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 in a replevin action because the judgment entered was for costs alone and did not constitute a final judgment on the merits. The court clarified that writs of error only lie from final judgments that adjudicate the merits or dispose of the action, not from judgments for costs only.
A judgment for costs alone is not a final judgment sufficient to support a writ of error. A final judgment in replevin must adjudicate the merits by awarding damages for taking and detention, or explicitly discharge the defendant of such damages. The writ of error was therefore erroneously issued and is dismissed.
“A final judgment is one that adjudicates the merits of the cause or disposes of the action.”
Establishes the legal definition of a final judgment necessary to support a 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 intelligenceMelissa Niles brought a replevin action against Sheriff J. M. Bell and was given possession of the property. At trial, a verdict was rendered in favor…
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, C. J.
Melissa Niles brought an action of replevin against the sheriff and was given possession of the property. At the trial, a verdict was rendered that the plaintiff was entitled to the property and the following judgment was entered thereon:
“Whereupon it was ordered by the court that the plaintiff, Melissa Niles have and recover of the defendant J. M. Bell, sheriff, the sum of $ its costs in this behalf expended to be levied of the goods, chattels, lands and tenements of the said defendant and to the plaintiff rendered for which let execution issue.” The statute provides that “the plaintiff shall have judgment for his damages caused by the taking and detention, and for his costs of suit.” Sec. 2188 General Statutes of 1906. Section 1691 of the General Statute provides that: “Writs of error shall lie only from final judgments, except as specified in section 1695,” which section authorized “writs of error from orders granting new trials.”
A final judgment is one that adjudicates the merits of the cause or disposes of the action. A judgment that the plaintiff recover of the defendant his damages in a stated sum is a final judgment to which a writ of error lies. If damages are waived the defendant should be adjudged to be discharged of them.
A judgment for costs alone, is not such a final judgment as will support a writ of error. Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla., 353, 33 South. Rep. 982; Dexter v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 52 Fla., 250, 42 South. Rep. 695; Blanton v. West Coast R. Co., 58 Fla. 169, 50 South. Rep. 945.
Where a writ of error purports to be taken to a final judgment and no such final judgment as will support a writ of error appears in the transcript, the court will not proceed to consider the errors assigned but will dismiss the writ of error whether a' motion be made for that purpose or not, since, except in case of an order granting a new trial under the statute, a writ of error may properly issue only to a judgment making a final disposition of the action in the trial court. Goldbring v. Reid, 60 Fla. 78, 54 South. Rep.
The judgment in this case is merely that the plaintiff “have and recover of the defendant the sum of $ its costs in this behalf expended.” As this is not a judgment finally disposing of the action or adjudicating the merits of the cause, the writ of error was erroneously issued and it is hereby dismissed.
Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur. Taylor, P. J., and Hocicer and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bell v. Niles, 61 Fla. 114 (Fla. 1911)…t by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error to recover the possession of a certain boat. A former writ of error was dismissed for the reason that the transcript of the record failed to show any final judgment. Bell, sheriff, v. Niles, 60 Fla. 31, 53 South. Rep., 714. Thereafter, on motion of the defendant, the following proceedings were had: “In the Circuit Court of Walton County, First Judicial Circuit of Florida. Melissa Niles, v. J. M. Bell, as sheriff. Replevin A verdict for the plai…1 / 2
-
State Rd. Dep't of the State of Fla. v. Crill, 99 Fla. 1012 (Fla. 1930)…W. R. 800; Sholty v. Sholty, 140 Ill. 81, 29 N. E. R. 1041. Coming now to the decisions of this Court, we find that a final judgment is one that adjudicates the merits of the cause and disposes of the action (Graves v. Harris, supra; Bell v. Niles, 60 Fla. 31, 53 So. R. 714) ; that puts an end to the suit (Branch v. Branch, 5 Fla. 447, 450) ; and that [*1018] at common law, there were “two prerequisites to the right of review by writ of error; there must have been not only a finality of the cause in the…
-
Goldfarb v. Bronston, 154 Fla. 180 (Fla. 1944)…n Judgments, the following paragraphs appear: “Coming now to the decisions of this court, we find that a final judgment is one that adjudicates the merits of the cause and disposes of the action (Graves v. J. M. Harris & Bro., supra; Bell v. Niles, 60 Fla. 31, 53 So. 714); that puts an end to the suit (Branch v. Branch, 5 Fla. 447, 450); and that at common law, there were ‘two prerequisites to the right of review by writ of error: There must have been, not only a finality of the cause in the inferior cou…
Authorities Cited
- Callie Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353 (Fla. 1903)
- Goldring v. Reid, 60 Fla. 78 (Fla. 1910)
- Dexter v. Seaboard Air Line Railway, 52 Fla. 250 (Fla. 1906)
- Blanton v. The W. Coast Ry. Co., 58 Fla. 169 (Fla. 1909)