J. W. REYNOLDS, PETITIONER,
v.
W. T. HARRISON, AS CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, 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.
Reynolds petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel Circuit Judge Harrison to take jurisdiction over unknown defendants in a quiet title action and enter a decree pro confesso. The Florida Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the applicable statute applied only to absent, concealed, or nonresident defendants, not all unknown defendants.
Chapter 10102 applies only to the specific class of unknown defendants described in the Act—absent, concealed, or nonresident defendants—not to all unknown defendants. The statute must be strictly pursued in constructive service cases, and an amendatory act passed later cannot retroactively confer jurisdiction where it did not exist under the prior law.
“Where constructive service of process is attempted the statute must be strictly pursued. Any failure in this regard will render the decree void.”
Establishes the strict construction standard required for constructive service statutes, supporting the court's narrow interpretation of the applicable statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReynolds filed a suit in chancery in Manatee County to quiet title to certain property and served process by publication against unknown claimants in …
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 Constructive Service cases and more on FLexlaw
Buford, J.
in this cause the alternative writ of mandamus was issued on the 23rd day of November, A. D. 1925, directed to the respondent commanding him as Circuit Judge of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida to take jurisdiction of a certain cause there pending and to enter a decree pro confesso therein as far as said cause related to unknown defendants.
It appears conclusively from the petition herein as well as from the return to the alternative writ:
“1. That J. W. Reynolds filed on the 30th day of September, A. D. 1925, a suit in chancery in the Circuit Court of Manatee County, Florida, to quiet title to certain property in Manatee County, Florida, and has served process by publication against any and all persons claiming any interest in and to the property described in the bill of complaint, by publication in four successive weekly issues of the Evening Herald, a newspaper of general circulation, published in Manatee County, Florida, of an order of publication made by the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for said county, addressed to said unknown persons.
“2. That a certificate of said constructive service, together with affidavit of publisher has been filed in said cause, and a certificate that no such person has appeared, which said certificate together with the file in said cause was presented to the Honorable W. T. Harrison, as Judge of said court, together with a petition asking for the entry of a decree pro confesso against said unknown defendants.
‘ ‘ 3. That on the 5th day of November, 1925, when said application was made to the Honorable W. T. Harrison, as aforesaid, by the complainant in said cause, the petitioner herein, that the said W. T. Harrison, as judge as aforesaid, refused to take jurisdiction of said unknown parties and refused to make any order in the suit, and persists in refusing to take jurisdiction of said cause, or to make any order therein. ’ ’
Upon these facts this action is based.
The question presented is one of jurisdiction of some of the parties to a suit and resolves itself info the necessary determination of whether or not the provisions of Chapter 10102, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1925, apply to all unknown defendants, or only apply to that class of unknown defendants described in the Act, i. e., absent, concealed or nonresident defendants.
Our conclusion is that the Act above referred to can only be construed to apply to that class of unknown defendants described in the Act as above' stated.
“Where constructive service of process is attempted the statute must be strictly pursued. Any failure in this regard will render the decree void.” Shrader v. Shrader, 36 Fla. 502, 18 South. Rep. 672.
Legislative construction sanctions this conclusion.
At the extraordinary session of the Florida Legislature, convened on the 17th day of November, A. D. 1925, an Act was passed which later became a law, which has not yet been published, amending Section One of Chapter 10102 so as to make the provisions thereof apply to all unknown defendants. This amendatory Act, however, can not by retroaction confer jurisdiction where it did not, under the then existing law, exist.
The peremptory writ is denied.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur. Brown, C. J., and Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smetal Corp. v. W. Lake Inv. Co., 126 Fla. 595 (Fla. 1936)…son of the defendant. Shrader v. Shrader, 36 Fla. 502, 18 So. 672; Wyley v. Sanford Loan & Trust Co., 44 Fla. 818, 33 So. 453; Ortell v. Ortell, 91 Fla. 50, 107 So. 442; Tibbetts v. Olson, 91 Fla. 824, 108 So. 679; Reynolds v. Harrison, 91 Fla. 834, 106 So. 909; State v. Gray, 92 Fla. 1123, 111 So. 242. Such strict construction is all the more important in view of the holding in this State that a personal judgment against a domestic corporation may be obtained upon service by publication. Clearwater Merca…
-
United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am. v. Graves Inv. Co., 153 Fla. 529 (Fla. 1943)…n of the defendant. Shrader v. Shrader, 36 Fla. 502, 18 So. 672; Wylly v. Sanford Loan and Trust Co., 44 Fla. 818, 33 So. 453; Ortell v. Ortell, 91 Fla. 50, 107 So. 442; Tibbetts v. Olson, 91 Fla. 824, 108 So. 679; Reynolds v. Harrison, 90 Fla. 834, 106 So. 909; State v. Gray, 92 Fla. 1123, 111 So. 242.” Also see Cattlett v. Chestnut, 107 Fla. 498, 146 So. 241. It appears from the face of the record in the cancellation suit that the court never acquired jurisdiction over the corporate appellee certificat…
-
Humphries v. Hester, 103 Fla. 1079 (Fla. 1932)…ce of process by publication should be strictly and exactly pursued in order to give the court jurisdiction to render a judgment by default against a party who does not appear or plead in the cause. Shrader vs. Shrader, supra; Reynolds vs. Harrison, 90 Fla. 834, 106 So. 909. It is error to proceed to a final decree in a cause before all parties made defendants have been brought into court and the issues made up, or decrees pro confesso entered against such defendants, or the cause dismissed as to unnecess…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shrader v. Aurelia Shrader, 36 Fla. 502 (Fla. 1895)