W. L. MILTEER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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 because the lower court's entry, while styled as a final judgment, did not meet the legal definition of a final judgment sufficient to support an appeal. The court emphasized the necessity of a proper final judgment for appellate review.
No, such an entry does not constitute a final judgment that will support a writ of error, and therefore the writ of error must be dismissed.
“The plaintiff stating that he does not desire to file further pleas herein, it is ordered that final judgment be entered herein in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff pay the costs in this action, mmc pro tunc Jan. 29, 1913. Thereupon it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendant, the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, a, corporation, do have and recover of the plaintiff, the said W. L. Milteer, the sum of Seven and 61/100 Dollars, its costs in this behalf expended.”
Describes the lower court's entry that was appealed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter the trial court overruled the plaintiff's demurrer to the defendant's pleas, the plaintiff stated they did not wish to file further pleas. The c…
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
Per Curiam.
This cause is taken up in its regular order for final disposition, and the court finds in the record the following entry after the order of the court overruling the demurrer of plaintiff to the pleas of defendant: “The plaintiff stating that he does not desire to file further pleas herein, it is ordered that final judgment be entered herein in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff pay the costs in this action, mmc pro tunc Jan. 29, 1913. Thereupon it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendant, the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, a, corporation, do have and recover of the plaintiff, the said W. L. Milteer, the sum of Seven and 61/100 Dollars, its costs in this behalf expended.” This is the only judgment purporting to be a final one. This court has several times held that ¡such an entry as this does not constitute a final judgment which will support a writ of error. See Pensacola Bank & Trust Co. v. National Bank of St. Petersburg, 58 Fla. 340, 50 South. Rep. 414; Dallam v. Sanchez, 56 Fla. 779, 47 South. Rep. 871; Blanton v. West Coast R. Co., 58 Fla. 169, 50 South. Rep. 915; Cobb v. Santa Rosa County, 47 Fla. 135, 36 South. Rep. 172; Haynes v. Bramlett, 46 Fla. 348, 35 South. Rep. 3; Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353, 33 South. Rep. 982.
There being no final judgment the writ of error is hereby dismissed.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emory Catchings v. Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co., 101 Fla. 792 (Fla. 1931)…equivalent of words that the plaintiff “take nothing by his suit, and that the defendant go hence without day” or words of like legal import. See Pensacola B. & T. Co. v. N. B. of St. Petersburg, 58 Fla. 340, 50 So. 414; Milteer v. S. A. L. Ry Co., 65 Fla. 357, 61 So. 749; Young v. Lassiter et al., 87 Fla. 445, 100 So. 362; Flynn-Harris-Bullard Co. v. Hampton et al., 70 Fla. 231, 70 So. 385; Mitchell v. St. Petersburg & Gulf R. Co., 56 Fla. 497, 47 So. 794. Dismissed. Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur. B…
-
Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, Inc., 99 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…llowing a verdict and a recitation that judgment was rendered for the defendant together with his costs, and held that such an entry was not a final judgment sufficient to support review by writ of error. In Milteer v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co., 65 Fla. 357, 61 So. 749, the general'rule was-adhered to by holding that an order for a final judgmént for the defendant followed by a judgment for costs was not" such a final'judgment as to support a writ of error. A much similar opinion was expressed in Young…
-
Young v. Lassiter, 87 Fla. 445 (Fla. 1924)…laintiff, to which ruling the plaintiff excepts and his exception is hereby entered.” This court has several times held that such an entry as this does not constitute a final judgment which will support a writ of error. Milteer v. S. A. L. Ry. Co., 65 Fla. 357, 61 South. Rep. 749; Pensacola Bank and Trust Co. v. National Bank St. Petersburg, 58 Fla. 340, 50 South. Rep. 414; Blanton v. West Coast R. Co., 58 Fla. 169, 50 South. Rep. 945; Dallam v. Sanchez, 56 Fla. 779, 47 South. Rep. 871; Cobb v. Santa Rosa…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dallam v. Sanchez, 56 Fla. 779 (Fla. 1908)
- Callie Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353 (Fla. 1903)
- Haynes v. Bramlett, 46 Fla. 348 (Fla. 1903)
- Cobb v. Cnty. of Santa Rosa, 47 Fla. 135 (Fla. 1904)
- Pensacola Bank & Tr. Co. v. The Nat'l Bank of St. Petersburg, 58 Fla. 340 (Fla. 1909)
- Blanton v. The W. Coast Ry. Co., 58 Fla. 169 (Fla. 1909)