THE DE FONCE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. AND J. B. COOPER, APPELLANTS,
v.
CHARLES M. EWING, APPELLEE
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.
DeFonce Construction Co. and J. B. Cooper appealed a final decree awarding $8,898.51 to Ewing, arguing that money was not due under a contract requiring payment out of a particular fund. The appellate court affirmed the judgment against DeFonce Construction Co. but reversed as to J. B. Cooper due to lack of proof of dealings with him.
The court affirmed the judgment against DeFonce Construction Co., Inc., but reversed the judgment as to J. B. Cooper. The appellate court held that an adverse judgment cannot be rendered against a party when no affirmative relief is claimed or proved against that party.
“To render an adverse affirmative judgment against a party against whom no affirmative relief is claimed or proved comes within the exception and is a fundamental error.”
Establishes the principle that judgment cannot be rendered against a party without proof of dealings or claims against that party
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEwing filed a second amended complaint against DeFonce Construction Co., Inc. and J. B. Cooper. Both appellants had contracted with the City of Miami,…
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 Fundamental Error cases and more on FLexlaw
BARNS, Associate Judge.
The case came on before the lower court for a final hearing upon the second amended complaint of the appellee (filed July 19, 19S6) and the answer of DeFonce Construction Co., Inc. and J. B. Cooper. On May 28, 1957 a final decree was rendered awarding a recovery against De-Fonce Construction Co., Inc. and J. B. Cooper in favor of the plaintiff-appellee Ewing for the sum of $8,898.51 whereupon DeFonce Construction Co., Inc. and J. B. Cooper entered their joint appeal and jointly assigned errors as hereinafter stated.
The only point presented by the appellants for consideration is:
“When a Contract Provides that Money Shall Be Paid Out of a Partic ular Fund, the Money is not Due until Receipt of the Fund Is Realized. This question is raised by assignments of error numbers 1, a, 3, & 4.”
Good practice as well as Appellate Rule 3.7, subd. f (4) direct that an appellant in his brief shall state the points relied on for reversal and that “specific assignments of error from which the points argued arise should he stated’’. This the appellants have failed to do, however, a search reveals the assignments to be as follows:
“1. The Court erred in entering its final decree herein on May 28, 1957.
“2. The Court erred in ordering defendants The DeFonce Construction Co., Inc. and J. B. Cooper to pay forthwith to the plaintiff the sum of $8,898.-51, together with interest and costs, by its final decree of May 28, 1957.
“3. The Court erred in its construction of the contract introduced in evidence as plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1.
“4. The Court erred in its construction of the contract introduced in evidence as plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1 and the application of that contract to the uncontradicted evidence adduced at final hearing which disclosed that the defendants The DeFonce Construction Co., Inc., and J. B. Cooper have not received payment for the work done by the plaintiff for the Department of Water and Sewers of the City of Miami and, therefore, were not yet required to make payment to the plaintiff for work done by plaintiff.”
We fail to find that the point argued is within the scope of any assignment of error and neither do we find that the record on appeal contains ruling or order that could constitute a basis sufficient to give rise to the point stated.
The $8,000 money decree appealed is a joint decree against both appellants, however, the last complaint filed, which is the second amended complaint, as to J. B. Cooper fails to show any dealings between the plaintiff-appellee and J. B. Cooper. Neither does the complaint or proof show any facts justifying a money judgment against him. It is alleged that both appellants-defendants contracted with the City of Miami, but only the construction company contracted with the appelleé-plaintiff. ’
The only exception-to the rule that error not assigned or not argued will not be considered is where a fundamental error is apparent on the face of the record. To render an adverse affirmative judgment against a party against whom no affirmative relief is claimed or proved comes within the exception and is a fundamental error. The decree appealed from is affirmed as to The DeFonce Construction Co., Inc., and reversed as to J. B. Cooper. • HORTON, Acting C. J., and PEARSON, J., concur,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bazarte v. State, 114 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…the fact that the question as stated is not in compliance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure in this State. Fla.App. Rule 3.7, subd. f(4), 31 F.S.A., Reid v. Johnson, Fla.App.1958, 106 So. 2d 624; De Fonce Construction Co. v. Ewing, Fla.App.1958, 99 So. 2d 718. Point V of appellants’ brief is stated as follows: “Failure to examine jurors individually as provided in Florida Statutes, 1957, Chapter 913.02 [F.S.A.].” The record presented does not contain information from which this court can determine the…
-
Lamb v. William T. Jones et ux., 202 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…which was not the appellant’s . responsibility. See the following on this court’s authority when it finds fundamental error in a record: City of Clearwater v. State, 108 Fla. 623, 147 So. 459; De Fonce Construction Co., Inc. v. Ewing, Fla.App. 1958, 99 So. 2d 718; Miami Gardens, Inc. v. Conway, Fla.1958, 102, So. 2d 622; Board of Public Instruction of Sarasota County, etc. v. Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, Fla.App. 1966, 184 So. 2d 491; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 290, pp. 632-634. Therefore, for the…
-
Saxton v. Miller, 230 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…Appellate Rule 3.7(f) (4), compels that an appellant in his brief state the points relied on for reversal, and that specific assignments of error from which the points argued arise be stated. De Fonce Construction Co., Inc. v. Ewing, Fla.App. 1958, 99 So. 2d 718. Although assignments of error are appropriately filed contesting the correctness of a judgment, if no point is made on appeal addressed to these assignments of error, they are deemed abandoned. Central Bank & Trust Co. v. Banner Trading Co., Fla.Ap…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence