A. L. THORNTON
v.
MARGARET H. PARKER, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF E. A. PARKER, DECEASED
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 lower court's judgment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow numerous late-filed pleas and motions on the eve of trial, as any potential error was harmless and did not affect the merits of the case.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Any error in refusing the late filings was harmless and did not reach the merits of the case.
“If an error was committed, it was harmless.”
Establishes that even if the trial court erred in its procedural rulings, the error did not prejudice the defendant.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff filed an action in assumpsit, later adding a count on a promissory note. The defendant filed several pleas, including the statute of lim…
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 Assumpsit cases and more on FLexlaw
As first brought, this was an action in assumpsit, the declaration being grounded on the statutory money counts. By leave of the Court, an additional count on a promissory note was filed. Pleas of the Statute of Limitations, payment, and the general issue were entered to the common counts and the plea of non est factum and payment to the count on the promissory note.
The cause stood at issue for almost a year, was placed on the calendar for trial, but on the eve of the date set for trial, the defendant without leave of the Court, filed a motion for stay, a motion for compulsory amendment, interrogatories, thirteen additional pleas, and a “demurrer to the action,” all of which were overruled. Trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, a motion for new trial was overruled and writ of error was prosecuted.
Plaintiff in error has argued twenty assignments of error all predicated on the order overruling the motion for a new trial. We have examined each assignment and collectively *533they charge abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in refusing to permit the additional pleas and other motions offered by defendant on the eve of the trial to prevail. If an error was committed, it was harmless. The assignments were all technical and did not reach the merits of the case.
The judgment below is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sutton v. State, 975 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2008)…tion is to seek review of the action by the lower court to ensure that the lower court is not acting without jurisdiction or has not erroneously denied a motion to disqualify. See State ex rel. Associated Utils. Corp. v. Chillingworth, 132 Fla. 587, 181 So. 346, 348 (1938) (“Proceedings by mandamus, quo warran-to, habeas corpus, certiorari and prohibition are original in their nature, though they may be invoked to perform functions that are appellate in their nature.” (emphasis supplied)). Here, a remedy i…
-
Wilds v. Permenter, 228 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…or General of Railroads v. Wilford, 1921, 81 Fla. 430, 88 So. 256. This is to be contrasted with jurisdiction over the person which may be achieved via waiver or consent. State ex rel. Associated Utilities Corp. v. Chillingworth, 1938, 132 Fla. 587, 181 So. 346. The judgment here appealed is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to vacate said judgment and the order of reinstatement. Reversed. McCAIN and REED, JJ., concur. . “(e) Failure to Prosecute. All actions in which it does not affirm…
-
Adams v. Gordon, 260 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…the term “appeal” reconciles the statute with the constitution because certiorari proceedings, although used to perform appellate functions, are original in nature. State ex rel. Associated Utilities Corporation v. Chillingworth, 1938, 132 Fla. 587, 181 So. 346, 348. This application of the statute also gives effect to the manifest intent of the legislature. Additionally, it avoids the anomaly of this court telling a citizen who has followed the clear language of an obviously pertinent statute that for his…