J. P. HARDEE, B. R. HINSON AND S. P. WOODWARD, PETITIONERS,
v.
MYAKKA FRUIT FARMS COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
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.
In a distress for rent proceeding, the trial court rendered judgment against the defendant and sureties on a bond without the jury finding the value of the distrained property as statutorily required. The Florida Supreme Court held that the judgment and execution against the sureties were invalid because they failed to comply with the statutory requirement that the value of the property be specifically found and stated.
The judgment against the sureties and the execution issued thereon were invalid because the jury verdict did not comply with the statutory requirement to find and state the value of the property distrained. Such judgment and execution should have been stayed, and the judgments affirming the execution's validity were improper.
“judgment shall be entered against the sureties for the value of the property" and "that the value of the property retaken by the defendant shall be found by the judge or the jury (as the case may be tried before the one or the other), and stated in the finding or verdict.”
Establishes the statutory requirement that value of distrained property must be found and stated in verdict before judgment against sureties can be entered.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA distress for rent action was brought against A. G. Knight by Myakka Fruit Farms Company. A forthcoming bond was executed with Hardee and Scrogin as …
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 Distress For Rent cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
In a distress for rent' proceedings brought in the County Court by the corporation against A. G. Knight, property was levied upon, and a forthcoming bond was executed by A. G. Knight as principal and J. P. Hardee and E. D. Scrogin as sureties, conditioned that the defendant “A. G. Knight shall have the said property forthcoming” on April 1, 1919.
At the trial a jury was sworn to determine what “rent or advances is due the plaintiff and the value of the same. ’ ’ The jury merely found “for the plaintiff.” Thereupon judgment was rendered “that'the said Myakka Fruit Company, a corporation, plaintiff, do have and recover of and from the said A. G. Knight, defendant, and J. P. Hardee and E. D. Scrogin, the sureties on the defendant’s bond, the property distrained having been restored to the dedefendant, the sum of Three Hundred Four and 80-100ths Dollars, principal and interest, in this behalf recovered together with the further sum of $43.91, for costs in this behalf expended, for which said sums let execution issue in favor of said plaintiff and against the said defendant and his sureties.”
An execution was issued on the judgment against A. G. Knight, J. F. Hardee and E. D. Scrogin.
In statutory proceedings to test the legality of the execution, it was held to be “legal in whole,” and this adjudication was affirmed on writ of error to the Circuit Court. A Writ of certiorari was issued by this court to review the record.
The statute provides that where there is a trial in distress proceedings and the judgment is against the defendant, ‘ ‘ judgment shall be entered against the sureties for the value of the property,” and “that the value of the property retaken by the defendant shall be found by the judge or the jury (as the case may be tried before the one or the other), and stated in the finding or verdict.” The verdict in this case merely found .“for the plaintiff” without finding the value of the property as required by the statute. 62 Fla. 496. The judgment rendered against the sureties on such a verdict for the value of. the property as fixed by the officer 'in levying the distress warrant, was not in accord with the essential requirements of the law and the execution issued against the sureties, on such a judgment should have been stayed on the proceedings for that purpose under the statute. The judgment adjudicating the execution to be valid in whole and rendering judgment against Hardee and B. R. Hinson and S. P. Woodward, his sureties on the bond in the statutory proceeding against the execution was not according to the essential requirements of the law, and it, with the judgment affirming it by the Circuit Court are quashed.
It is so ordered.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beale, Inc. v. Hawley, 116 Fla. 445 (Fla. 1934)…ng, and though it be pursued in the circuit court, a court of general jurisdiction, the statutory requirements' must be substantially complied with. See Hooks v. Farmers Union Warehouse Co., 62 Fla. 496, 56 So. 501; Hardee v. Myakka Fruit Farms Co., 84 Fla. 628, 94 So. 504; East Coast Stores v. Cuthbert, 101 Fla. 25, 133 So. 863; Fotinos v. Romack Co., Inc., 101 Fla. 497, 134 So. 506. The case of Hooks v. Farmers Union Warehouse Co., supra, involved a construction of Section 5282, as applied to a forthcom…
Authorities Cited
- Hooks v. Farmers Union Warehouse Co., 62 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1911)