INTERNATIONAL KAOLIN COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANCIS VAUSE, TRUSTEE, 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.
International Kaolin Company and others appealed a foreclosure decree, challenging whether mortgage bonds were properly admitted in evidence before a newly joined party (the holder of legal title) had an opportunity to contest them. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the failure to re-offer the bonds after the new party joined deprived it of a substantial right to cross-examine the evidence.
The court reversed the decree, holding that the failure to re-offer the bonds before the master deprived the holder of legal title of a substantial right that the rules of law permit it to assert. The absence of a party cannot place it in a worse position than if its counsel were silently present, and the entire failure to re-offer evidence constitutes a deprivation of due process rights.
“The absence of the party cannot place him in a worse position than if its counsel were silently present, and as there was no proffer of the bonds there was no dereliction in failing to interpose an objection to their introduction in evidence.”
Establishes that a party's physical absence does not waive the right to challenge evidence not formally offered, and that failure to object to evidence never proffered is not dereliction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA foreclosure of mortgage was pending when the holder of the legal title was made a party defendant. The holder filed a general denial answer. At the …
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 Master'S Report cases and more on FLexlaw
On Rehearing..
Cockrell, J.
— -From the former appeal in this case, 55 Fla. 641, 46 South. Rep. 3, and the kindred case of Florida Clay Co. v. Vause, 57 Fla. 407, 49 South Rep. 35, will be found much of the history of the case as it now stands.
Pending this foreclosure of mortgage and after much evidence had been taken, the holder of the legal title was made a party. It filed an answer in effect a general denial calling for proof, which included of course proof of the execution of the bonds secured by the mortgage. This defendant, though notified of. the hearing before the master, was not present and the taking of the evidence proceeded eos parte.
The report of the master is before us, and while we can glean from that report the physical presence of these bonds before him at the time, it does not appear that they were at any time offered or received in evidence. The absence of the party cannot place him in a worse position than if its counsel were silently present, and as there was no proffer of the bonds there was no dereliction in failing to interpose an objection to their introduction in evidence.
Under rule 18, objections to evidence not ruled upon by the chancellor before or at the final hearing are considered by this court as waived, but this rule does not cover an entire failure to proffer evidence. Nor does the further provision of the rule that every matter purporting to be evidence found copied by the clerk into the record will be presumed to have been used in evidence in the court below help the appellee. It appears affirmatively that the bonds were filed in evidence before the holder of the legal title was made a party and was therefore before the court as to all former parties. We have before us the master’s report which from its silence shows affirmatively that the bonds were not re-offered, and the.decree based thereon in no wise indicates that other evidence was taken.
We regret that we are compelled to reverse the decree in this prolonged litigation, but the failure to re-offer the bonds before the master deprived the holder of a substantial right that the rules of law permit him to assert.
If the new defendant desires a different master, it should apply to the Circuit Court therefor within ten days after the mandate is sent down. Decree reversed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Tayior and Shackleford, J. J., concur;
Hocker, J., did not participate.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Downing v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Lake City, 81 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1955)…of the original note in cases where suit is on a note. See Lenfesty v. Coe, 34 Fla. 363, 16 So. 277; Scott v. Taylor, 63 Fla. 612, 58 So. 30; Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Aultman, 58 Fla. 228, 50 So. 991; International Kaolin Co. v. Vause, 62 Fla. 505, 57 So. 360. “In Scott v. Taylor, supra, we held: “ ‘A mortgage executed as security for the payment of a negotiable promissory note is a mere incident of and ancillary to such note. When it comes to the payment thereof, the rights of the parties…
-
Johns Supply Co. v. McNeeley, 125 Fla. 306 (Fla. 1936)…in cases where suit is on a note. See Lenfesty, et al., v. Coe, 34 Fla. 363, 16 Sou. 277; Scott v. Taylor, 63 Fla. 612, 58 Sou. 30; Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, v. Aultman, 58 Fla. 228, 50 Sou. 991; International Kaolin Co., et al., v. Vause, 62 Fla. 505, 57 Sou. 360. In Scott v. Taylor, supra, we held: “A mortgage executed as security for the payment of a negotiable promissory note is a mere incident of and ancillary to such note. When it comes to the payment thereof, the rights of the parties th…
-
Ga. Holding & Inv. Co. v. Citizens Bank, 145 Fla. 540 (Fla. 1940)…While it has been generally held (See Lenfesty, et al., v. Coe, 34 Fla. 363, 16 Sou. 277; Scott v. Taylor, 63 Fla. 612, 58 Sou. 30; Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Aultman, 58 Fla. 228, 50 Sou. 991; International Kaolin Co., et al., v. Vause, 62 Fla. 505, 57 Sou. 360) that the notes, the payment of which the mortgage is given to secure, should be offered in evidence before the master as proof of the basis of the debt in foreclosure proceedings, a decree should not be reversed because of the lack of…
Authorities Cited
- Int'l Kaolin Co. v. Vause, 55 Fla. 641 (Fla. 1908)
- Fla. Clay Co. v. Vause, 57 Fla. 407 (Fla. 1909)