H. P. LANGFORD
v.
KING LUMBER & MANUFACTURING CO.
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 ordered reargument on specific questions regarding the propriety of a lower court's judgment on certain counts of a declaration, considering the pleas filed. The court was divided on how to handle the judgment in relation to the pleadings.
The court did not provide a holding but instead ordered reargument on the specific legal questions presented.
“The Court being in disagreement as to the disposition of this case on rehearing in so far as the propriety of the judgment of the Circuit Court on the third and fourth counts of the declaration, when considered in relation to the particular pleas to those counts, is concerned, it is ordered that a reargument of this cause be had on the following questions:”
Establishes the reason for ordering reargument and the specific focus of the court's concern.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves a disagreement on rehearing concerning the disposition of the judgment from the Circuit Court, specifically as it relates to the thi…
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.
The Court being in disagreement as to the disposition of this case on rehearing in so far as the propriety of the judgment of the Circuit Court on the third and fourth counts of the declaration, when considered in relation to the particular pleas to those counts, is concerned, it is ordered that a reargument of this cause be had on the following questions:
(1) Whether a judgment of nil cepit as distinguished from in abatement predicated on a plea of non joinder of proper parties plaintiff can be sustained as a matter of law on the third and fourth counts under the pleadings as-framed ?
(2) Whether or not the only appropriate judgment that can be rendered by the appellate court is to affirm the judgment as to the common counts but to reverse it as to the third and fourth counts with a direction for re-trial of the issues under those counts, subject to the privilege of defendant to file such valid amended or additional pleas to said counts as may be deemed necessary to conserve the defendant’s defenses, if any, to the cause of action laid on the third and fourth counts ?
*112New briefs confined to the above propositions will be received if filed within ten days, with five days thereafter allowed for reply.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Teeeell, Bufoed, Brown, Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E. B. Elliott Co. v. Elliott, 137 Fla. 456 (Fla. 1939)…Terrell, C. J. This is our second consideration of this case. See Elliott v. E. B. Elliott Co., et al., 127 Fla. 158, 172 So. 686. The trans'cript in the latter appeal is made part of the record in the instant appeal which is from a decree enlarging the time for taking testimony and denying a motion for final decree on the pleadings. Was the Chancellor guilty of an abuse of d…
-
Gallie v. Wainwright, 362 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1978)…inasmuch as we directed a return only on the original issues asserted by Gallie. Nonetheless, we have analyzed the alleged infirmity in the information and hold that it is not defective. . See Fla.App.R. 3.7(d); Langford v. King Lumber & Mfg. Co., 127 Fla. 111, 172 So. 686 (1937). . Ch. 69-29, Laws of Fla. . Under Article V, Section 2(a), Florida Constitution, we could treat the request for habeas corpus as a request for the appropriate form of relief. . The full text of the Rules of Executive Clemency…
-
Campbell v. Pace, 369 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ice. In this connection, see the following: Balias v. Lake Weir Light & Water Company, supra; Murphy v. Green, 102 Fla. 102, 135 So. 531 (1931); Langford [*416] v. King Lumber & Manufacturing Co., 123 Fla. 855, 167 So. 817 (1936); reargument granted 127 Fla. 111, 172 So. 686 (1937), affirmed 132 Fla. 143, 181 So. 395 (1938). We have examined the authorities cited by the appellant and find them not to be applicable, as they are distinguishable. Some of those authorities relate to a situation wherein a real…