From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Catchings v. Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co.

Supreme Court of Florida
Jun 6, 1931
135 So. 561 (Fla. 1931)

Summary

characterizing go hence without day as words of finality

Summary of this case from Jackson v. Jackson

Opinion

Opinion filed June 6, 1931.

A writ of error to the Circuit Court for Seminole County; W. W. Wright, Judge.

Dismissed.

Shepard Wahl, for Plaintiff in Error;

Crawford May, for Defendant in Error.


A writ of error was taken to the following: "The Court having directed a verdict for Defendant herein on December 20th, and said Jury having returned a verdict for Defendant, judgment is hereby rendered herein for the Defendant above named."

This may be regarded as an order that an appropriate judgment for the defendant be duly entered but it is not such a final judgment as will support a writ of error. The words, "judgment is hereby rendered herein for the defendant" are not the equivalent of words that the plaintiff "take nothing by his suit, and that the defendant go hence without day" or words of like legal import. See Pensacola B. T. Co. v. N. B. of St. Petersburg, 58 Fla. 340, 50 So. 414; Milteer v. S. A. L. Ry Co., 65 Fla. 357, 61 So. 749; Young v. Lassiter et al., 87 Fla. 445, 100 So. 362; Flynn-Harris-Bullard Co. v. Hampton et al., 70 Fla. 231, 70 So. 385; Mitchell v. St. Petersburg Gulf R. Co., 56 Fla. 497, 47 So. 794.

Dismissed.

TERRELL AND DAVIS, J.J., concur.

BUFORD, C.J., AND ELLIS AND BROWN, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.


Summaries of

Catchings v. Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co.

Supreme Court of Florida
Jun 6, 1931
135 So. 561 (Fla. 1931)

characterizing go hence without day as words of finality

Summary of this case from Jackson v. Jackson

In Catchings v. Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co., 101 Fla. 792, 135 So. 561, 562, the Supreme Court held that an entry `judgment is hereby rendered herein for the defendant' is not the equivalent of the entry that the plaintiff `take nothing by his suit, and that the defendant go hence without day' and that the entry first above quoted was not such a final judgment as would warrant review by writ of error.

Summary of this case from Elliott v. Lazar

In Catchings v. Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co., 101 Fla. 792, 135 So. 561, 562, the Supreme Court held that an entry "judgment is hereby rendered herein for the defendant" is not the equivalent of the entry that the plaintiff "take nothing by his suit, and that the defendant go hence without day" and that the entry first above quoted was not such a final judgment as would warrant review by writ of error.

Summary of this case from Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels
Case details for

Catchings v. Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co.

Case Details

Full title:EMORY CATCHINGS, a minor, by his next friend, TOM CATCHINGS, his father…

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Jun 6, 1931

Citations

135 So. 561 (Fla. 1931)
135 So. 561

Citing Cases

Schwertfeger v. Constant

A motion was filed by the appellees to dismiss the appeal. It will be observed that the appeal was taken…

Russell v. Russell

See, for example Goldfarb v. Bronston, 154 Fla. 180, 184, 17 So.2d 300, 301 (1944) and Gates v. Hayner, 22…