FELLOWSHIP FOUNDATION, INC., A FLORIDA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, AND WEST VIRGINIA TRAINING SCHOOL, A WEST VIRGINIA CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
B. M. SOULE AND WIFE, ANNA S. SOULE, APPELLEES
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.
Fellowship Foundation, Inc. and West Virginia Training School appealed from judgments entered against them in a promissory note collection action. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgments, holding that West Virginia Training School's appeal was untimely and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to review the default judgment against it, and that Fellowship Foundation's arguments lacked merit.
The court lacked jurisdiction to review West Virginia Training School's appeal because it was not timely filed within 60 days of the entry of judgment as required by statute. As to Fellowship Foundation, Inc., the appeal was timely, but its arguments lacked merit and were therefore not discussed.
“As to West Virginia Training School, it is apparent that the appeal was not taken within 60 days from entry of the judgment appealed from as required by Sec. 59.08, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for timely appeals and identifies West Virginia Training School's failure to comply
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceB. M. and Anna S. Soule sued Fellowship Foundation, Inc. and West Virginia Training School to recover on a promissory note executed by C. A. Maddy, Pr…
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 Action On Promissory Note cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELLv Justice.
.Fellowship Foundation, Inc., is a Florida corporation, not for profit. West Virginia Training School is a West Virginia Corporation, authorized to do business in Florida, through a designated resident agent, Clarence A. Maddy. B. M. and Anna S. Soule brought this action • against Fellowship Foundation, Inc., to recover on a promissory note, endorsed by West Virginia Training School. The note was executed by C. A. Maddy, President of Fellowship Foundation, Inc. The complaint alleged the designated resident agent of West Virginia Training School to be “Clarence A. Maddy-whose address is % Thacker and Thacker, Attorneys at Law, Thacker Building, Kissimmee, Florida.” A motion to dismiss on the part of West Virginia Training School was denied; default judgment was entered-against the movánt who suffered a final judgment to be ' entered against it. Later summary judgment was entered against Fellowship Foundation, Inc. The joint defendants have appealed from both the summary judgment and -the final judgment entered in the cause.
Several questions are urged for determination but the only material one is that challenging the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court on the ground that service of process was not secured on defendant West Virginia Training School.
It appears that there were two judgments entered by the trial court.' The first was entered February 19, 1954, 'pursuant to default by West Virginia Training School. The second -was entered August 17, 1954, against'Fellowship Foundation, Inc. Appellants seek review of both judgments by notice of appeal filed October 16, 1954. As to.West Virginia Training School, it is apparent that the appeal was not taken within 60 days from entry of the judgment appealed from as required by Sec. 59.08, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. See also Donin v. Goss, Fla., 69 So. 2d 316, and Dustin v. Latzko, 155 Fla. 824, 21 So. 2d 904.
It follows that this court did not acquire jurisdiction of West Virginia Training School and being so, there is no theory-under which we would be authorized to' explore and adjudicate the first or main question raised. As to Fellowship Foundation, Inc., the questions raised are without merit and are not discussed.
Affirmed.
DREW, C. J., HOBSON, J„ and' STANLY, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Evin R. Welch & Co., Inc. v. Johnson, 138 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…e dismissed as being too late.” (Emphasis supplied.) An example of such a “split” judgment which the Florida Supreme Court treated as “final in form and substance” as to the first of two judgments is Fellowship Foundation, Inc., v. Soule, Fla.1956, 85 So. 2d 628. In that case the lower court had first rendered a default judgment against the endorser and later entered a summary judgment against the maker in a suit on a promissory note. Both defendants then appealed. As to the default judgment against the end…
-
Ramsey v. Aronson, 99 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)…nson, and there was no further judicial labor to be performed in connection with the appellant’s claim against him. See Dustin v. Latzko, 155 Fla. 824, 21 So. 2d 904; Donin v. Goss, Fla.1954, 69 So. 2d 316; Fellowship Foundation v. Soule, Fla. 1956, 85 So. 2d 628. The appellant was apparently granted an order of non-suit after the entry of the summary judgment for the appellee, Paul Aronson. There was no adverse ■ ruling about to be made by the lower court on the trial of the cause for the reason that the a…
-
Rice v. Doyle, 223 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…at even had the nunc pro tunc order not been entered, the appeal by one codefendant while judgment was pending against the other co-defendant could be entertained.” and at page 394: “Furthermore, Fellowship Foundation, Inc. v. Soule, supra, [Fla., 85 So. 2d 628] which held that the time within which an appeal could be brought from the first of two judgments entered respectively against two defendants began to run on the day said first judgment was entered, is authority requiring the instant appeal.” As ap…
Authorities Cited
- Dustin v. Latzko, 155 Fla. 824 (Fla. 1945)
- Peek v. Fla. Comm'n on Offender Review (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)
- Donin v. Goss, 69 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 1954)