FLORIDA BREWING COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
C. A. SENDOYA, 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 affirmed a lower court's decree nullifying a judgment against one partner individually, because that partner was not properly served. The ruling clarifies that a judgment obtained through service on only one partner does not create a lien on the individual property of the unserved partner.
No, the judgment does not constitute a lien on the individual real estate of the partner who was not served.
“is decreed to be null and void as against Clements A. Sendoya individually and declared, to be no lien or encumbrance whatsoever on the individual real estate * of the said C. A. Sendoya.”
Describes the lower court's order that was reviewed on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA judgment was entered in favor of the Florida Brewing Company against a partnership. However, service of process was only made on one partner, Montie…
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.
Per Curiam.
In appropriate proceedings the court ordered that a judgment in favor of the Florida Brewing Company against Serafín Moritiel and Clements A. Sendoya, co-partners as Montiel & Sendoya, “is decreed to be null and void as against Clements A. Sendoya individually and declared, to be no lien or encumbrance whatsoever on the individual real estate * of the said C. A. Sendoya.” The defendant company appealed. The de cree is correct in that the service on which the judgment was rendered was made on the partner Montiel and not on the partner Sendoya; therefore, while the judgment is a lien on the partnership lands and. the individual lands of Montiel, the partner who was served, it is not a lien on the individual lands of Sendoya, the partner who was not served. See Sec. 1404 Gen. Stats. 1906; Compiled Laws 1914; Thomas v. Nathan, 65 Fla. 386; 62 South. Rep. 206; Nathan v. Thomas, 63 Fla. 235, 58 South. Rep. 247, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 387; First Nat. Bank v. Greig, 43 Fla. 412, 31 South. Rep. 239.
Affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. DeWitt T. Gray, 92 Fla. 1123 (Fla. 1927)…ecution issued upon it however could only reach the partnership lands and assets and the individual property of the parties served with process, but not the individual land's of the person not served with process. See Florida Brewing Co. v. Sendoya, 73 Fla. 660, 74-South. Rep. 799. In the ease at bar the declaration was in tort. It does [*1133] not even appear that it was a tort for which the alleged partnership was liable. From anything appearing to the contrary the persons composing the alleged copartne…
-
I. Epstein & Brother v. First Nat'l Bank of Tampa, 92 Fla. 796 (Fla. 1926)…r argues that a co-partnership is a legal entity, and the following authorities are cited. 20 R. C. L. 804 (6); Jensen v. Wiersma, 185 Iowa 551, 170 N. W. Rep. 780, 4 A. L. R. 208; State ex rel. v. Bowden, 18.Fla. 17; Florida Brewing Co. v. Sendoya, 73 Fla. 660, 74 South. Rep. 799. [*801] Even if the cases cited could be held to establish the legal proposition that a partnership is a legal entity and that partnership property is held separate and apart from the property of the individual members of the co-…1 / 2
-
Kennedy v. Richmond, 512 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…judgment binding the partners served and the partnership property, a judgment after service on fewer than all the partners will not be given the effect of a personal judgment against partners not actually served. See Florida Brewing Co. v. Sendoya, 73 Fla. 660, 74 So. 799 (1917); Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York v. Homan, 116 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959). Appellant contends that appellee failed to establish excusable neglect, a meritorious defense and due diligence in moving to set aside the judgme…
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
- Nathan v. Thomas, 63 Fla. 235 (Fla. 1912)
- Thomas v. Nathan, 65 Fla. 386 (Fla. 1913)
- The First Nat'l Bank of Orlando v. Greig, 43 Fla. 412 (Fla. 1901)