EMORY CATCHINGS, A MINOR, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, TOM CATCHINGS, HIS FATHER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
FLORIDA-MCCRACKEN CONCRETE PIPE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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 dismissed a writ of error because the lower court's judgment was not final. The court clarified that a statement directing a verdict for the defendant and rendering judgment for them is insufficient to support an appeal.
No, the lower court's order was not a final judgment and therefore did not support a writ of error. The language used was not equivalent to a formal judgment that the plaintiff take nothing by their suit.
“The Court having directed a verdict for Defendant herein on December 20th, and said Jury having returned a verdict for Defendant, judgment is hereby rendered herein for the Defendant above named.”
This quote represents the lower court's order that was being appealed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, Emory Catchings, a minor, appealed a directed verdict and subsequent judgment for the defendant, Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Compan…
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.
A writ of error was taken to the following: “The Court having directed a verdict for Defendant herein on December 20th, and said Jury having returned a verdict for Defendant, judgment is hereby rendered herein for the Defendant above named.”
This may be regarded as an order that an appropriate judgment for the defendant be duly entered but it is not such a final judgment as will support a writ of error. The words, “judgment is hereby rendered herein for the defendant” are not the equivalent of words that the plaintiff “take nothing by his suit, and that the defendant go hence without day” or words of like legal import. See Pensacola B. & T. Co. v. N. B. of St. Petersburg, 58 Fla. 340, 50 So. 414; Milteer v. S. A. L. Ry Co., 65 Fla. 357, 61 So. 749; Young v. Lassiter et al., 87 Fla. 445, 100 So. 362; Flynn-Harris-Bullard Co. v. Hampton et al., 70 Fla. 231, 70 So. 385; Mitchell v. St. Petersburg & Gulf R. Co., 56 Fla. 497, 47 So. 794.
Dismissed.
Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Russell v. Russell, 507 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…xample Goldfarb v. Bronston, 154 Fla. 180, 184, 17 So. 2d 300, 301 (1944) and Gates v. Hayner, 22 Fla. 325 (1886), cited therein. See, also, Baker v. Colley, 104 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958), citing Catchings v. Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co., 101 Fla. 792, 135 So. 561 (1931). To those of us who respect precedent but do not wish to be surrogates of the status quo, it seems appropriate to question why a rule continues to exist when (a) the reason for its existence may have ceased to be supportable or…
-
Monticello Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 743 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…s not actually enter or render a judgment as to insurance coverage or include specific “language of finality” necessary for a judgment of this type to be considered “final” for purposes of an appeal. See Catchings v. Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe, 101 Fla. 792, 135 So. 561, 562 (1931); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Collier, 405 So. 2d 311, 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)(order which provided that “Defendant’s motion for final summary judgment is hereby granted that the plaintiff take nothing by the suit and go hence witho…
-
Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, Inc., 99 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…or the defendant followed by a judgment for costs was not" such a final'judgment as to support a writ of error. A much similar opinion was expressed in Young v. Lassiter, 87 Fla. 445, 100 So. 362. In Catchings v. Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co., 101 Fla. 792, 135 So. 561, 562, the Supreme Court held that an entry “judgment is hereby rendered herein for the defendant” is not the equivalent of the entry that the plaintiff “take nothing by his suit, and that the defendant go hence without day” and that the…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Weeke v. Reeve, 65 Fla. 374 (Fla. 1913)
- Young v. Lassiter, 87 Fla. 445 (Fla. 1924)
- Flynn-Harris-Bullard Co. v. Hampton, 70 Fla. 231 (Fla. 1915)
- Pensacola Bank & Tr. Co. v. The Nat'l Bank of St. Petersburg, 58 Fla. 340 (Fla. 1909)
- Milteer v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 65 Fla. 357 (Fla. 1913)
- Mitchell v. St. Petersburg & Gulf Ry. Co., 56 Fla. 497 (Fla. 1908)