ELIZABETH COX, ET AL.,
v.
L. L. STUCKEY, ET AL.
— The appeal here is from a decree dismissing a bill of complaint which sought to vacate a final decree theretofore entered in a chancery cause upon the ground that the defendant had not been served with process. Return of the sheriff showed legal service. No fraud or collusion participated in by the complainant in the original suit is averred.
The decree should be affirmed on (authority of the opinion and judgment in Lewter v. Hadley, 68 Fla. 131, 66 Sou. 567; Allison v. Handy-Andy Community Stores, Inc., 106 Fla. 274, 143 Sou. 263.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
*489Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Buford, J. J., concur.
(concurring). — Complainant should not have proceeded by separate bill but should have filed appropriate petition in the same suit. If jurisdiction in first suit was not in fact obtained, the decree never became final, but in such cases only clearest showing will warrant vacating a final decree bas'ed upon a return showing service, although the return is false. A false return can be ratified by acquiescence or the right to challenge it lost by estoppel.
Davis, C. J.
(concurring). — Complainant should not have proceeded by separate bill but should have filed appropriate petition in the same suit. If jurisdiction in first suit was not in fact obtained, the decree never became final, but in such cases only clearest showing will warrant vacating a final decree bas'ed upon a return showing service, although the return is false. A false return can be ratified by acquiescence or the right to challenge it lost by estoppel.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Earle B. Allison v. Handy Andy Cmty. Stores, Inc., 106 Fla. 274 (Fla. 1932)
- Linnie W. Lewter v. Hadley, 68 Fla. 131 (Fla. 1914)