MARY M. CASPER ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM P. BONBRIGHT, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 an order quashing process, holding that a motion to quash that addressed the merits of the case constituted a general appearance, thereby waiving any defects in service.
Yes, a motion to quash that goes to the merits of the cause constitutes a general appearance, bringing the defendants within the court's jurisdiction.
“Without deciding whether or not the process was fatally defective as to any of the defendants, we must hold that the first ground of the motion to quash constituted in effect a general appearance by solicitors for the defendants, notwithstanding the attempted special appearance.”
Establishes the court's primary reasoning for affirming the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants moved to quash process based on a purported special appearance. The motion included a ground that argued there was no justiciable matter au…
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 Motion To Quash Process cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This appeal is from an order made on a motion to quash the process, the motion being made on a purported special appearance.
Without deciding whether or not the process was fatally defective as to any of the defendants, we must hold that the first ground of the motion to quash constituted in effect a general appearance by solicitors for the defendants, notwithstanding the attempted special appearance. This ground of the motion was in the following language:
“There is no justiciable matter authorizing the obtaining of service or other predicate laid in the facts as set forth in the bill of complaint.”
By such ground of the motion to quash going as it does to the merits of the cause, the defendants were brought within the jurisdiction of the Court in the cause so pending. See Smith v. Bulkley, 15 Fla. 64; Oppenheimer v. Guckenheimer, 34 Fla. 13, 15 Sou. 670; Ray v. Trice, 48 Fla. 297, 37 Sou. 582; Garner v. Garner, 83 Fla. 143, 90 Sou. 819.
The order of the chancellor should be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rorick v. Foster, 101 Fla. 4 (Fla. 1931)…ef that can be granted only by a court having jurisdiction, his appearance is general, though designated special. Driscoll v. Tillman, 161 N.W. 795, 165 Wis. 245. An example of the application of the latter doctrine is found in Casper v. Bonbright, 115 So. 540, 94 Fla. 1237, where there was a motion made to quash the process as distinguished from a . motion to quash the service and return. The motion as made in that case involved the jurisdiction of the Court to make the order requested on the stated grou…
-
The City of Coral Gables v. Certain Lands Upon Which Taxes Are Delinquent, 110 Fla. 189 (Fla. 1933)…The holding of the Circuit Court that the filing of those motions constituted general appearances is supported by the opinions and judgments in the cases of Ortell v. Ortell, 91 Fla. 50, 107 Sou. 442; Capper et al. v. Bonbright et al., 94 Fla. 1237, 115 Sou. 540; First National Bank v. Board of Public Instruction, 93 Fla. 182, 111 Sou. 521; State ex rel. Pepper v. Atkison, 98 Fla. 996, 124 Sou. 458; and cases there cited. This case presents no question concerning the validity of the assessment and levy of…
-
Etta Sternberg v. Jacon Charles Sternberg, 139 Fla. 219 (Fla. 1939)…de, in law constitutes a general appearance and thereby waives the question of defects in the service raised by the special appearance oi motion to quash or set aside. See Ortell v. Ortell, 91 Fla. 50, 107 So. 442; Casper v. Bonbright, 94 Fla. 1237, 115 So. 540; Ray v. Trice, 48 Fla. 297, 37 So. 582; Oppenheimer v. Guckenheimer, 34 Fla. 13, 15 So. 670; Smith v. Bulkley, 15 Fla. 64. We therefore hold that the motion made and presented by the defendant in the court below pursuant to the special appearance wh…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Oppenheimer v. Guckenheimer, 34 Fla. 13 (Fla. 1894)
- Ray v. Trice, 48 Fla. 297 (Fla. 1904)
- Garner v. Garner, 83 Fla. 143 (Fla. 1922)
- Smith v. Bulkley, 15 Fla. 64 (Fla. 1875)