AMERICAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, A BANKING CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ROGER B. LYLE, ET AL., DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 reversed an order quashing a writ of garnishment, holding that a defective writ, if amendable, should not be dissolved. The court emphasized that the writ was not void and the garnishee had appeared, making amendment the proper course.
The writ of garnishment was not void, but merely defective and amendable. Therefore, the trial court erred in quashing and dissolving the writ instead of granting the motion to amend.
“Even if the writ was defective because it was directed “to the sheriff or constable of any county” instead of to the sheriff of the county in which the garnishees resided, the writ was not void, and the garnishee bank was served in the county of its domicile and appeared in the cause by counsel.”
Establishes that the defect in the writ did not render it void.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmerican Bank and Trust Company obtained a writ of garnishment. The writ was addressed "to the sheriff or constable of any county" instead of specific…
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 writ of error herein was taken to an order quashing and dissolving a writ of garnishment because the writ was addressed “to the sheriff or constable of any county,” instead of “to the sheriff or other proper officer of the county in' which the garnishee may reside,” as required by Section 5287 (3434) Compiled General Laws 1927.
The garnishee appeared in the cause by counsel and after motions by the defendant to quash and dismiss the writ of garnishment and to quash the service of the writ, the plaintiff moved to amend the writ.
The court ordered that the motions to quash the service and to dismiss the writ of garnishment be granted and that said writ be “quashed and dissolved” with leave to amend the writ; and “that said amended writ of garnishment be served upon said” garnishee “before the same shall become effective. ’ ’
Even if the writ was defective because it was directed “to the sheriff or constable of any county” instead of to the sheriff of the county in which the garnishees resided, the writ was not void, and the garnishee bank was served in the county of its domicile and appeared in the cause by counsel. The writ if defective was amendable and the motion to amend should have been granted, without dissolving the writ.
Reversed for appropriate proceedings.
Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.
Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.