C. W. ZARING & COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
A. LEE HUMPHREYS, 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 judgment, which only awarded costs to the defendant, was not a final judgment that could be appealed. The court emphasized that a final judgment must adjudicate the merits of the case.
No, a judgment that awards only costs to a prevailing defendant is not a final judgment and cannot support a writ of error because it does not adjudicate the merits of the cause.
“A judgment for costs alone, though entered for the defendant after a verdict in his favor, will not support a writ of error, since such a judgment does not adjudicate the merits of the cause or dispose of the action, and is consequently not a final judgment.”
Establishes the core legal principle that a judgment for costs alone is not a final judgment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff corporation brought an action against the defendant as an endorser of promissory notes. The trial court directed a verdict for the defen…
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.
In an action brought by the corporation against A. Lee Humphreys as an endorser before delivery of certain promissory notes, there was a directed verdict for the defendant, on which a judgment was rendered that “the defendant, A. Lee Humphreys, do have and recover of and from the plaintiff, C. W. Zaring & Company, a Corporation, * * * the sum of five and 40-100 dollars here taxed as his costs.” There was no other judgment for the defendant. A writ of error was taken by the plaintiff corporation.
A judgment for costs alone, though entered for the defendant after a verdict in his favor, will not support a writ of error, since such a judgment does not adjudicate the merits of the cause or dispose of the action, and is consequently not a final judgment. Graves v. J. M. Harris & Bro., 61 Fla. 234, 54 South. Rep. 390; Dexter v. Sea board Air R. Co., 52 Fla. 250, 42 South. Rep. 695; Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353, 33 South. Rep. 982; Goldring v. Reid, 60 Fla. 78, 53 South. Rep. 503.
Where a writ of error purports to be taken to a final judgment and no final judgment appears in the transcript of the record proper,.the court should not proceed to con-' sider the errors assigned, but should dismiss the writ of error, whether a motion be made for that purpose or not Flournoy v. Interstate Electric Co., 61 Fla. 214, 55 South. Rep. 983.
Attention is called to the fact that the transcript does not contain an exception to the order overruling the motion for a new trial.
The writ of error is dismissed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Whitfield, J. J., concur. Hocker, J., absent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Rd. Dep't of the State of Fla. v. Crill, 99 Fla. 1012 (Fla. 1930)…ars in the record, whether a motion be made for the-purpose or not, the writ of error will be dismissed (Flournoy v. Interstate Elec. Co., 61 Fla. 214, 55 So. R. 983; S. A. L. Ry. Co. v. Bennett, 47 Fla. 215, 36 So. R. 86; Zaring & Co. v. Humphreys, 68 Fla. 6, 65 So. R. 665; Goldring v. Reid, 60 Fla. 78, 53 So. R. 503) and the Court will not. consider the errors assigned. Graves v. Harris, 61 Fla. 254, 54 So. R. 390; Goldring v. Reid, supra. In the proceeding before us, the plaintiff in error sought to…
-
ALL Fla. Sur. Co. v. Coker, 79 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1955)…money, where the relief afforded the prevailing party is for something other than the payment of money and the costs are only a mere incident to the right adjudicated, see Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353, 33 So. 982; C. W. Zaring & Co. v. Humphreys, 68 Fla. 6, 65 So. 665; 4 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 136, p. 282; 49 C.J.S., Judgments, § 5; Baar v. Smith, [*765] 201 Cal. 87, 255 P. 827, it is apparent that the appellant has misconceived the effect of the new rules so far as they relate to supersedeas or…
-
The First Nat'l Bank of Lake City v. Landress, 102 Fla. 840 (Fla. 1931)…: “A judgment for costs alone, the merits not being adjudicated, though entered for defendant after the jury have found a verdict in his favor, is not such final judgment as will support a writ of error.” See also C. W. Zaring & Co. vs. Humphreys, 68 Fla. 6, 65 Sou. 665; American Soda Fountain Company vs. Plaza Marina, Inc., filed at this term of the Court. The writ of error should be dismissed and it is so ordered. Dismissed. Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur. Ellis and Te…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities 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)
- Wm. W. Flournoy v. Interstate Elec. Co., 61 Fla. 214 (Fla. 1911)