W. A. SPIVEY AND O'BERRY & HALL CO., INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.
v.
G. D. HUSS, SR.
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 denied certiorari, finding no error in the lower court's denial of a motion to strike parts of a sheriff's answer. The court also noted that an order dismissing the intervenors' petition was a final decree not reviewable by certiorari.
No, there was no error in denying the motion to strike because the allegations in the Sheriff's answer, if true, constituted a valid defense.
“The allegations of the Sheriff's answer which were [*528] sought to be stricken constituted, if true, a good defense to the allegations of the petition and, therefore, there was no error in denying motion to strike.”
Establishes the reasoning for denying the motion to strike.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIntervenors sought an order requiring the Sheriff to turn over goods and money to a Court Receiver. The Sheriff filed an answer to this petition. The …
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 Final Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before us on petition for certiorari to review an order denying motion to strike certain parts of an answer to a petition of Intervenors in which petition Intervenors sought an order of court requiring the Sheriff of Hardee County, Florida, to turn over to a Court Receiver certain goods, merchandise and money which the petition alleged were in the hands of the Sheriff and which, it was alleged, he had failed to turn over to the Receiver in response to an order of the court theretofore entered.
We are also asked to review an order dismissing the petition of the Intervenors. The latter order is a final decree which may not be reviewed on certiorari under Rule 34.
The allegations of the Sheriff’s answer which were *528sought to be stricken constituted, if true, a good defense to the allegations of the petition and, therefore, there was no error in denying motion to strike.
Certiorari is denied.
So ordered.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Buford and Adams, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bartow Growers Processing Corp. v. Fla. Growers Processing Coop., 71 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1954)…was pointed out that an “order * * * dismissing bill of complaint ■as to certain named defendants was a final judgment- as to such defendants reviewable only by appeal * * See also Alderman v. Puritan Dairy, 145 Fla. 292, 199 So. 44; Spivey v. Huss, 147 Fla. 527, 3 So. 2d 127. While section 59.45, Florida Statutes [*166] 1951, F.S.A., provides that an appeal improvidently taken ■ may “be regarded and acted on as a petition for certiorari duly presented”, it does not provide that a petition for certiorari im…