C. H. RUTAN AND M. KING, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
R. L. STUDEBAKER, 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 taken by two of four defendants against a judgment rendered on a statutory proceeding involving an allegedly illegal execution. The court held that all parties jointly liable under a judgment must be joined in a writ of error, and that the absence of essential parties who are directly affected by the judgment requires dismissal.
The writ of error must be dismissed. All persons against whom a joint judgment is rendered must be joined in the writ of error, and where essential parties who are directly and substantially affected by the judgment are absent, the writ of error cannot proceed.
“In such cases all the persons against whom the judgment is rendered should be joined in the writ of error and if necessary summons and severance may be had.”
Establishes the requirement that all jointly liable parties must be parties to a writ of error
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceC. H. Rutan and M. King sought to challenge a judgment of the circuit court for Walton county rendered upon a statutory proceeding on an affidavit all…
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.
Whitfield, C. J
This writ of error was taken by C.
H. Rutan and M. King to a judgment of the circuit court for Walton county upon a statutory proceeding on an affidavit alleging the illegality of an execution issued by the clerk of the circuit court upon a judgment rendered by the county judge and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court. The judgment is against M. King and C.
H. Rutan, as principals, and against Nimrod McGuire and E.
H. Miller as sureties in the bond filed with the affidavit of illegality. It is suggested in the brief of counsel for the defendant in error that the writ of error should be dismissed because the judgment to which the writ of error issued is a joint judgment against four persons while only two of them take out the writ of error. In such cases all the persons against whom the judgment is rendered should be joined in the writ of error and if necessary summons and severance may be had. Nash v. Haycraft, 34 Fla., 449, 16 South. Rep., 324; Standley v. Jaffray, 13 Fla., 596. It also appears that the judgment of the county judge on which the execution issued is a joint judgment against Malissa Mies, H.
E. Mies, M. King and C.
H. Rutan, growing out of the seizure of a boat valued at $500.00 under an execution issued by the county judge, neither the defendant in execution nor the claimant of the boat being a party to this writ of error. This being so no question is presented here for determination in which the plaintiffs in error alone are directly interested; and as a consequence, in the absence of all the parties who are directly and substantially affected by the said judgments the writ of error be and the same is hereby dismissed.
Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur;
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McJunkins v. Stevens, 88 Fla. 559 (Fla. 1925)…the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court to determine the subject matter of the appeal. In West v. Johnson, 66 Fla. 4, 62 South. Rep. 913, the joint judgment defendant did not appear and ask to be made a party appellant. See also Rutan v. Studebaker, 60 Fla. 184, 53 South. Rep. 9381; Stanley v. Jaffrey & Co., 13 Fla. 596; State ex rel. Andreu v. Canfield, 40 Fla. 36, 23 South. Rep. 591; Cornell v. Franklin, 40 Fla. 149, 23 South. Rep. 589; Stovall v. Stovall, 77 Fla. 116, 80 South. Rep. 744. An entry of ap…
Authorities Cited
- Nash v. Haycraft, 34 Fla. 449 (Fla. 1894)
- Penelope L. Standley v. E. S. Jaffray & Co., 13 Fla. 596 (Fla. 1869)