WOOD ET AL.
v.
SINCLAIR REFINING CO. ET AL.
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 an appeal of a motion to dismiss ruling because the trial court's order was not a final judgment. The trial court had dismissed the plaintiffs' tort conspiracy claim but allowed them to proceed on a contract breach theory, which the court found was not a final, appealable order.
The dismissal order was not a final judgment because further judicial proceedings were required. The order allowed plaintiffs to amend and pursue a contract claim, meaning additional rulings and potential decisions remained outstanding, making the order interlocutory rather than final.
“the order does not appear to be a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken”
Establishes the central holding that the dismissal order was interlocutory and not properly appealable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs Wood et al. sued Sinclair Refining Co. and others alleging tortious conspiracy to injure their business. The trial court heard motions to d…
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 Tortious Conspiracy cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMAS, Justice.
The appellants claimed damages 'because of the tortious action of the appellees in conspiring together and with other persons to injure the appellants in their business.
When the matter was heard on motions to dismiss the judge granted the motions “without prejudice to the plaintiff [sic] ,to proceed at law on a claim of breach of 1 contract.” Now we are asked to judge the merits of the complaint.
But we do not feel obliged to decide the point because the order does not appear to be a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken. The judge reserved to the plaintiffs the right to “proceed at law,” but, of course, they were already submitting their cause of action in a court of law. He indicated that their action grew out of a contract instead of a wrongful act.
Under the provisions of Common Law Rule 9, 30 F.S.A., the plaintiffs could have plead both causes of action and now, according to our interpretation of the order, they may proceed ex contractu, so the effect of the order was to allow an amendment though, evidently, the plaintiffs had not sought that privilege. Obviously, if this Court passes upon their contention that they were right in pleading tort and agrees with the view of the trial court, the trial court, and probably this Court, will eventually have to rule also on a complaint setting out a breach of contract. Much judicial labor is yet to be done and the decision we are asked to review is not, therefore, final. See Foley v. State, Fla., 50 So. 2d 179; and Hoskins v. Jackson Grain Co., Fla., 59 So. 2d 24.
As we construe the order in the light of what has been and what may be decided, we do not find that it has the characteristics of a final judgment so the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the positions any of the parties litigant may take if the matter reaches this Court again, properly.
TERRELL, SEBRING, HOBSON, MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., concur. ROBERTS, C. J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J. W. Nowlin Cum Testamento Annexo of the Estate of Arvilla P. Bentley v. Emry C. Pickren, 131 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)…t law in that court which remained to be litigated. It would be a useless and unnecessary requirement to hold that the plaintiff was obligated to file another action at law in tire same court. In the case of Wood v. Sinclair Refining Co., Fla.1954, 73 So. 2d 226, the court considered a similar question. Suit was filed on a tort claim. The lower court granted a motion to dismiss “without prejudice to the plaintiff to proceed at law on a claim of breach of contract”. On appeal the Supreme Court held this was…
-
Van Brinkley v. Prudence Mut. Cas. Co., 199 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…al labor required in the cause was not ended. See Howard v. Ziegler, Fla.1949, 40 So. 2d 776; Foley v. State ex rel. Gordon, FIa.1951, 50 So. 2d 179, 186; Hoskins v. Jackson Grain Co., Fla.1952, 59 So. 2d 24; Wood v. Sinclair Refining Co., Fla.1954, 73 So. 2d 226.…
Authorities Cited
- Foley v. State Ex Rel. Gordon, 50 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1951)