ED. FRIEDRICH
v.
J. M. BROWN AND THEODORE L. BROWN, TRADING AS BROWN AND SON
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.
Friedrich sought to recover personal property via replevin against Brown and Son. After the sheriff redelivered the property to defendants upon posting bond, the county court clerk dismissed the replevin suit without notice. The Florida Supreme Court held that dismissing a replevin action after redelivery of property was unauthorized and void, but denied certiorari because the proper remedy was mandamus, not certiorari.
The court held that dismissing the replevin suit after redelivery of the property was unauthorized and void, depriving the plaintiff of statutory rights. However, the proper remedy was mandamus against the county court judge, not a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.
“The order of dismissal of the replevin suit, after the defendants had obtained a redelivery to them of the described personal property by giving a bond as provided for by Section 5341 C. G. L., was unauthorized and void.”
Establishes the central holding that dismissing the replevin suit after property redelivery was beyond the court's authority
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 12, 1938, Friedrich filed a replevin action in Sumter County Court to recover personal property from J.M. Brown and Theodore L. Brown trading…
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 Forthcoming Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
On March 12, 1938, Ed. Friedrich filed in the County Court of Sumter County, Florida, an action in replevin against J. M. Brown and Theodore L. Brown, trading as Brown and Son, for the purpose of obtaining possession of certain described personal property. The Sheriff of Sumter County, Florida, took possession of the described personal property under a writ of replevin and within the three-day period provided by statute, the possession thereof was by the said sheriff redelivered to the de-. *774fendants on the posting of a forthcoming bond conditioned according to law.
On the 2nd day of May, 1938, plaintiff filed a declaration' in the County Court of Sumter County, Florida. On June 6, 1938, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the cause of action on the grounds: (a) a copy of the cause of action upon which the action in replevin was based was not attached to the declaration; (b) a copy of the declaration was not served upon the defendants on or before the rule day succeeding the filing of the declaration.
On June 6, 1938, without notice to counsel for plaintiff, the motion' of the defendants was granted and the replevin suit dismissed and the order of dismissal was signed by Roy Caruthers, Clerk of the County Court in and for Sumter County. Counsel for plaintiff presented a motion to vacate and set aside the order of dismissal and the said motion was denied and the order of denial was dated October 21, 1939, and signed by J. M. Eaddy, Judge.
An appeal was perfected from the order of dismissal as made by the County Court of Sumter County to the Circuit Court of Sumter County and a motion was made in the circuit court to dismiss the said appeal on numerous grounds appearing in' the motion. On the 29th day of February, 1940, Honorable J. C. B. Koonce, circuit judge, made and entered an order granting the said motion to dismiss.
On August 1, 1940, a .petition for a writ of certiorari was filed in this Court seeking to review the order dated February 29, 1940, dismissing the said appeal taken' to the Circuit Court of Sumter County, Florida, from the order of dismissal of the replevin suit made and entered by the clerk of the county court and the later order made by the judge of the county court overruling and denying a motion to vacate and set aside the order of dismissal of the suit in' replevin.
*775The order of dismissal of the replevin suit, after the defendants had obtained a redelivery to them of the described personal property by giving a bond as provided for by Section 5341 C. G. L., was unauthorized and void. Neither the clerk nor the judge of the County Court of Sumter County was authorized to dismiss the replevin suit after the possession of the described property had been redelivered to the defendants and thereby depriving the plaintiff of his rights conferred by statute. The remedy of the petitioner was an action in mandamus against the judge of the County Court of Sumter County commanding that he discharge the duties imposed by law. See State ex rel. Heavelow v. Frederick, 121 Fla. 494, 163 So. 885; Crump v. Branning, 74 Fla. 522, 77 So. 228.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is hereby denied.
Whitfield, Brown, Buford, and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Chief Justice Terrell not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General 'Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. Ex rel. Ed Friedrich v. Howell, 156 Fla. 163 (Fla. 1945)…wenty-three monthly installments of $29.57. Brown & Son defaulted in their monthly payments and on March 12, 1938, Ed Friedrich instituted replevin in the County Court of Sumter County, Florida. For additional pertinent facts see Friedrich v. Brown, 144 Fla. 773, 198 So. 701. Within the three day period provided by statute Brown & Son, defendants in replevin, gave a forthcoming bond and the property supra was redelivered to them by the Sheriff. The Clerk of the County Court of Sumter County, Florida, on mo…
Authorities Cited
- Crump v. Branning, 74 Fla. 522 (Fla. 1917)
- State v. Frederick, 121 Fla. 494 (Fla. 1935)