J. A. JETT, APPELLANT,
v.
J. E. ELDRIDGE, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's refusal to open a default judgment, finding that the defendant was not properly notified of proceedings after filing a demurrer.
Yes, the lower court erred. The defendant was entitled to notice of the amendment and an opportunity to be heard on his demurrer, which had not been disposed of.
“As to the defenses thus sought to be interposed, the defendant has not had his day in court, and there is no Court Rule that even looks to a deprivation of this right.”
Establishes the core reasoning for reversing the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant filed a demurrer to the complainant's bill. The complainant amended the bill without notice to the defendant to address a ground of 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 Decree Pro Confesso cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
— This appeal is from a refusal to open up a decree pro eonfesso and a final decree thereon, the application being made within thirty days of the final decree, but not quite within thirty days of the order taking the bills as confessed.
The record presents a clear case of error. The defendant demurred to the bill upon various grounds, and his demurrer was set down by the complainant. Without notice to the defendant, the complainant obtained an order amending his bill, to meet an obvious objection set forth in one ground of the demurrer. The application to amend did not pretend to admit the demurrer as a whole, and upon this record it remains undisposed of and no. default could properly be entered. As to the defenses thus sought to be interposed, the defendant has not had his day in court, and there is no Court Rule that even looks to a deprivation of this right.
The error on this record is not without material harm. The final decree allows interest upon a usurious contract and also attorneys’ fees, amounting together to over six hundred dollars, more than one-fourth the original indebtedness alleged to be due.
The decrees should be set aside, and it is so ordered.
Whitfield, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford and Hooker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peoples Realty Co. v. S. Colonization Co., 78 Fla. 628 (Fla. 1919)…n an application presented more than twenty days, to-wit: about sixty days after the date of the final decree. An erroneous denial of a motion to set aside a decree pro confesso and final decree consequent thereon will be reversed. Jett v. Eldridge, 63 Fla. 442, 59 South. Rep. 16. An order setting aside a decree pro confesso and a final decree consequent thereon will be reversed where the showing made in support of the motion is not sufficient to quitably support the order under the principles controlling…