R. W. THOMPSON AND PEORIA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANTS
v.
WILLIAM GROSSLAUB, AND OTHERS, 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 a trial court's refusal to dismiss an equity suit brought by non-resident plaintiffs despite their failure to timely file a security bond as required by statute. The court held that where a bond is ultimately filed and approved and the statutory purpose of securing court costs is achieved, the trial court has discretion to refuse dismissal for non-compliance with the timing requirement.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to dismiss a suit for noncompliance with the form of the security bond statute when the substantive object of the statute—obtaining adequate security for court costs—has been met by an approved bond, even though the bond was not filed within the statutory timeframe.
“Section 4672, C. G. L., supra, must be construed as having for its practical object the obtaining of an adequate security for court costs in a suit being prosecuted by a nonresident plaintiff. The allowance of a motion to dismiss is merely a means which is authorized by the statute to be used in order to coerce observance with its terms.”
Establishes that the statute's purpose is substantive security for costs, not formal compliance with timing, and dismissal is a remedial tool rather than an absolute requirement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR. W. Thompson and Peoria Development Company, non-resident plaintiffs, brought an equity suit in Brevard County Circuit Court. Although they failed t…
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 Discretion Of The Court cases and more on FLexlaw
This' is an appeal from an interlocutory order of the Circuit Court of Brevard County, refusing appellants’ motion toi dismiss an equity suit because of noncompliance with Section 4672, C. G. L., 2948 R. G. S. as to giving security for the payment of costs in cases where suits are brought in the courts of this state by non-resident plaintiffs. The record shows that a bond was in fact actually given, approved and filed by the responsible party charged with the duty of giving same, but the contention *551here made is that it was not given within the time required by law after notice was served upon plaintiff in accordance with the statute.
The holding of this Court in National Net & Twine Company v. Stevens, 101 Fla. 801, 135 Sou. Rep. 509, relied upon by appellants for reversal of the order complained of, is not susceptible of application to the effect that because of the statute, the Court is without any discretion that it may exercise by denial of motion to dismiss a cause under it, when it is made to appear that the object of the statute has been met, although the statute was disregarded in form.
Section 4672, C. G. L., supra, must be construed as having for its practical object the obtaining of an adequate security for court costs in a suit being prosecuted by a nonresident plaintiff. The allowance of a motion to dismiss is merely a means which is authorized by the statute to be used in order to coerce observance with its terms. Therefore, where it is made to appear to the Court that although a non-resident plaintiff or complainant in a case is in technical default because he has not complied with the terms of the statute within the period required therefor* but has-nevertheless afterward given, filed and had approved by the Clerk of the Circuit Court a bond which is good in substance and adequate for the purpose of the required security as to payment of costs, the Court may in its' sound discretion refuse to dismiss the suit because the bond was not given and filed within the statutory time, since the object of the statute is realized by the bond that has been actually given and accepted.
This is not to say that the Court is required to indulge those non-resident plaintiffs who fail to observe the plain terms of statutes requiring them to- comply with certain conditions for the maintenance of suits in the courts of this *552state, but simply means that where it has been made to this Court that the real object of the statute has been obtained, and a bond has been actually filed and accepted before a mo-, tion to dismiss is brought on for hearing, that the appellate court will not reverse an order of the Circuit Court exercising its discretion in refusing to dismiss the suit for noncompliance with the form of the statute when the substance of it appears to have been met.
In this case it appears that the bond on file is not fatally defective for the purpose for which it was given, and inasmuch as it has been taken and approved by the Clerk of the Circuit Court who is responsible for his approval of it as to the sufficiency of the sureties thereon, the order appealed, from denying the appellants’ motion to dismiss the suit for failure to give bond as required by the statute, will* be affirmed, no abuse of discretion appearing.
Affirmed.
Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Achord v. Osceola Farms Co., 52 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…Florida constitution containing a provision for access to the courts. Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. (1838).3 The practical reason for such a statute is to obtain security for a suit being prosecuted by a nonresident plaintiff. See Thompson v. Grosslaub, 109 Fla. 550, 147 So. 861 (1933). In 170 years the statute appears never to have been challenged as unconstitutional on any ground. This alone provides reason to determine that the circuit court did not depart from clearly established precedent, because the law…
-
E. Auto Supply Co., Inc. v. Anchor Mortg. Servs., Inc., 502 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…essity of compliance with the statute. See 1964 Op.Att’y. Gen.Fla. 064-179 (Dec. 15, 1964). However, there is insufficient basis in the record presented for this court to conclude that the trial judge abused his discretion. Cf Thompson v. Grosslaub, 109 Fla. 550, 147 So. 861, (Fla.1933) (trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to dismiss action for failure to timely post a cost bond, where bond was in fact actually posted); Wctxman v. Schwarz, 458 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (trial court abu…
-
Dyck-O'Neal, Inc. v. Duffy, 180 So. 3d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…circumstances of the case, including whether the out-of-state plaintiff has, in fact, belatedly filed the required bond. Second, longstanding case law does not support the tidal court’s belief that dismissal was required. In Thompson v. Grosslaub, 109 Fla. 550, 147 So. 861 (1933), the supreme court specifically held that the trial court had the discretion to refuse to dismiss an out-of-state plaintiffs action even though the required .nonresident cost bond was not filed within the statutory time. In rejec…