MARTHA HANNAH WHITESIDE, SOLE DEVISEE AND LEGATEE UNDER THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF E. WHITESIDE, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. J. DINKINS, 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.
Martha Hannah Whiteside, sole devisee of her deceased father's estate, sued to recover on a judgment he had obtained against J. J. Dinkins nearly twenty years earlier. The trial court ruled for Dinkins based on his plea that he had paid the judgment, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed, finding no evidence supporting payment and holding that Whiteside was entitled to judgment.
The court held that there was no testimony in the record supporting Dinkins's plea of payment of the judgment, and therefore Whiteside was entitled to a directed verdict for the amount of the judgment plus interest. The trial court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for an instructed verdict.
“There is no testimony in the record tending to support the plea of payment of the judgment. Instead, all the negotiations testified to by the defendant related to an attempted settlement of the claim before it ripened into the judgment that is being sued upon.”
Establishes that the court found no evidentiary support for the defendant's payment defense and that all evidence related to pre-judgment settlement negotiations rather than satisfaction of the judgment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceE. Whiteside obtained a judgment against J. J. Dinkins on August 8, 1901. After Whiteside's death, his sole devisee and legatee, Martha Hannah Whitesi…
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 Instructed Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
Browne, J.
This suit is brought by Martha Hannah Whiteside to recover on a judgment obtained nearly twenty years before by her father, E. Whiteside, deceased, which she alleges she is the owner of.
The case went to trial on á single plea, that defendant before the bringing'of this suit had “fully paid and satisfied the judgment sued upon.” There was verdict and judgment for the defendant and the plaintiff took writ of error. It appears from the record that the defendant was served with a summons in a suit brought by E. Whiteside on August 8, 1901, which resulted in the judgment sued on, and that there were some negotiations between Whiteside and Dinkins about a settlement of the claim, prior to the entry of the judgment.
There was introduced in evidence a sworn bill in chancery brought by Dinkins to have'this judgment declared a nullity, and to be discharged from liability thereunder, in which he alleges he did not know of the entry and existence of the judgment until May, 1915, nearly fourteen years after its rendition.
All the testimony of the defendant with regard to the alleged settlement or payment of the judgment relates to transactions and negotiations, prior to the judgment, for a settlement of the claim which resulted in the judgment. This was objected to by the plaintiff below, who also moved to strike.
There is some testimony to the effect that a horse was delivered to E. Whiteside by Dinkins, and that Whiteside collected rents for some farm land from tenants of Dinkins after entry of the judgment. It appears, however, that the agreement to deliver the horse was made at the time of the negotiations to settle the claim subsequently resulting in the judgment, and that the rent of the farm land was to pay a note given by Dinkins prior to the judgment, in an effort to settle the claim.
There is no testimony in the record tending to support the plea of payment of the judgment. Instead, all the negotiations testified to by the defendant'related to an attempted settlement of the claim before it ripened into the judgment that is being sued upon. At the conclusion of the testimony, the plaintiff moved for an instructed verdict on the State of the pleadings and the testimony, which was denied. This was error going to the merits of the cause as the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict for the amount of the judgment sued on, with interest.
The judgment is therefore reversed.
Taylor C. J., and Ellis, J., concur;
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur in the opinion.
West, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
CAT 'N Fiddle, Inc. v. The Century Ins. Co., 213 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1968)…d’s agent, it is incumbent on the insurer to demonstrate that the scope of the agent’s authority encompassed the authority to perform the act sought to be charged to the agent’s principal. See Foye Tie & Timber Co. v. Jackson (Fla.1923), 86 Fla. 97, 97 So. 517. In the present case we do not understand Respondent to contend that Hurst was expressly authorized by Petitioner to accept notice of cancellation. Nor do we understand Respondent to contend that Hurst had apparent authority to accept cancellation…
-
B & L Motors, Inc. v. Bignotti, 427 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…satisfaction of judgment is only that it constitutes evidence of payment of the debt established by the judgment. Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(d), payment is an affirma [*1073] tive defense. See also Whiteside v. Dinkins, 86 Fla. 261, 97 So. 517 (1923), holding that a satisfaction of a judgment is a defense to a suit on the judgment. Accordingly, the execution and recording of the satisfaction of the initial judgment in the instant case did not extinguish that judgment or cause it to disapp…
-
Halie v. Wickersham, 103 Fla. 254 (Fla. 1931)…nce is fatal to a recovery. Wiggins v. Wilson, supra; F. F. & C. Ins. Co. v. Hart, 73 Fla. 970, 75 So. 528; Sulzner v. Price-Williams, 82 Fla. 199, 89 So. 540; Hinote v. Brigman, 44 Fla. 589, 33 So. 303; Foye Tie & Timber Co. v. Jackson, 86 Fla. 97, 97 So. 517; Tripp v. Wade, 82 Fla. 325, 89 So. 870. Since the direction of a verdict in the court below appears to have been based almost entirely upon a construction of the contract sued on, which is contrary to that contended for by the plaintiff in error,…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence