ROBERT M. SMITH, RESPONDENT,
v.
EDWARD B. BULKLEY, APPELLANT
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 judgment against a non-resident defendant, holding that a general appearance by attorneys cured any defects in service of process, thus establishing the court's jurisdiction.
Yes, a general appearance by a defendant, either in person or by attorney, cures any defect in service of process and grants the court jurisdiction as effectively as if personal service had been made.
“The defendant, however, appeared by two attorneys, and pleaded to the complaint, and two trials were had, each of which resulted in a verdict for plaintiff, a new trial having-been granted after the first verdict on the motion of defendant by his attorney.”
describes the defendant's actions in the lower court despite lack of service.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA lawsuit was filed against a non-resident defendant, with an attachment of his property. There was no personal service or publication of summons. How…
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 Personal Service Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
delivered the opinion of the court.
This suit was commenced under the Code by the issuing of a summons, and an attachment was also issued and levied upon defendant’s property. Defendant was a non-resident. There was no personal service of process, and no publication of summons.
*66The- defendant, however, appeared by two attorneys, and pleaded to the complaint, and two trials were had, each of which resulted in a verdict for plaintiff, a new trial having-been granted after the first verdict on the motion of defendant by his attorney.
No exceptions appear to have been taken, and the only question made upon the appeal is, that there was no service or publication of the summons, and upon this ground defendant insists that there was no jurisdiction obtained by the Circuit Court, and, therefore, the judgment should be reversed.
It has been uniformly held by this court, and by the courts of all the States and of the United States, that a general appearance of the defendant in person, or by attorney, in the suit, where no service was had, or where the service was defective, cures any defect of service, and gives jurisdiction as effectually as if service in person had been made.
The judgment is affirmed with costs, to be taxed under the Code, in favor of the plaintiff.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Etta Sternberg v. Jacon Charles Sternberg, 139 Fla. 219 (Fla. 1939)…appearance oi motion to quash or set aside. See Ortell v. Ortell, 91 Fla. 50, 107 So. 442; Casper v. Bonbright, 94 Fla. 1237, 115 So. 540; Ray v. Trice, 48 Fla. 297, 37 So. 582; Oppenheimer v. Guckenheimer, 34 Fla. 13, 15 So. 670; Smith v. Bulkley, 15 Fla. 64. We therefore hold that the motion made and presented by the defendant in the court below pursuant to the special appearance which sought an order (al dismissing the bill of complaint, and (b) an' order granting defendant [*226] below suit money and…
-
Casper v. Bonbright, 94 Fla. 1237 (Fla. 1928)…facts as set forth in the bill of complaint.” By such ground of the motion to quash going as it does [*1238] to the merits of the cause, the defendants were brought within the jurisdiction of the Court in the cause so pending. See Smith v. Bulkley, 15 Fla. 64; Oppenheimer v. Guckenheimer, 34 Fla. 13, 15 Sou. 670; Ray v. Trice, 48 Fla. 297, 37 Sou. 582; Garner v. Garner, 83 Fla. 143, 90 Sou. 819. The order of the chancellor should be and the same is hereby affirmed. Affirmed. Whitfield, P. J., and Terr…
-
Bartley v. Bingham, 34 Fla. 19 (Fla. 1894)