CHAS. H. BROWN ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
GEORGE BOOTH, 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 denied a rehearing, affirming that a defendant can claim the privilege to be sued in their county of residence, even if the cause of action accrued elsewhere, provided service was made in the county of residence.
Yes, a defendant can claim the privilege to be sued in the county of their residence where they were served, regardless of where the cause of action accrued.
“Though under section 1397 General Statutes of 1906, the writ may “run throughout the State,” the defendant may plead his privilege of being sued in the county of his residence in the State unless the action is brought in a county where the cause of action accrued and proper service is made on him in that county.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning regarding the defendant's privilege to be sued in their county of residence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs sought a rehearing after a plea was sustained on demurrer. The promissory note was made payable in Hillsborough County, but the defenda…
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 Venue Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
A rehearing is asked on the grounds that as the promissory note on which the action is brought appears from its date line to have been made at Tampa in Hillsborough County, the plea that was sustained on demurrer permits the terms of the written instrument to be varied by parol; and that the cause of action accrued in Hillsborough County the place of payment of the note where the alleged breach occurred.
The first ground need not be considered, since as the service on the defendant was made in Pinellas County, where he resides, and not in Hillsborough County, where the note was made payable, the defendant could claim his privilege to be sued in the county of his residence where he was served. See Russ v. Mitchell, ii Fla. 80.
Thoug'h under section 1397 General Statutes of 1906, the writ may “run throughout the State,” the defendant may plead his privilege of being sued in the county of his residence in the State unless the action is brought in a county where the cause of action accrued and proper service is made on him in that county.
Rehearing-denied.
All Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McClure v. Traffic Truck Sales Co., 90 Fla. 356 (Fla. 1925)…ecord having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, and being of the opinion that this case is controlled by Santa Rosa Co. v. Trobuck, 77 Fla. 86, 80 So. 748, and not by Brown v. Booth, 73 Fla. 67; 74 So. 212, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed. Whitfield, P. J., and…