TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bartlett v. Cohn

James E. Bartlett, Plaintiff in Error v. Bert C. Cohn, Defendant in Error

Bartlett v. Cohn, 120 So. 357 (Fla. 1929)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Florida · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 21, 1929
Judges
Terreil, Ellis, Brown, Whitfield, Buford, Long, Circuit-Judge
Citations
120 So. 35797 Fla. 256

Opinion of the Court — Terreil

Terreil, C. J.

In May, 1925, defendant in error brought an action at law against' the plaintiff in error. The declaration was in the common counts and laid damages in the sum of $4000.00. There was no appearance or pleadings on the part of defendant below, plaintiff in error here, so judgment was taken by default and execution was issued thereon in March, 1927. A motion for stay of said execution was seasonably made and denied and writ of error was taken to that judgment.

The motion for stay of execution was made pursuant to Section 2829, Rev. Gen. Stats. (Sec. 4515 Comp. Gen. Laws of Fla. 1927) and is predicated on the insufficiency of the sheriff’s return to the summons ad respondendum and the further allegation that the record shows that the cause of action did not accrue until after the commencement of the action.

*258 Sec. 2829, Rev. Gen. Stats. of Fla., is as follows:

2829. Tlie Court before which an execution is returnable may, on a motion and notice to the adverse party, for good cause, upon such terms as the court may impose, direct a stay of the same, and the suspension of proceedings thereon.

This statute contemplates a liberal discretion on the part of trial courts in the matter of control over executions issued from them. Such control may go to the extent of staying the execution and suspending proceedings thereunder on terms directed by the court.

By the facts disclosed in the record the return of the sheriff on the summons was-insufficient to properly identify the defendant and bring him under the jurisdiction of the court. It did not therefore amount to due process and since it was the basis of the execution the execution was without a proper predicate and should have been stayed. The judgment below is accordingly reversed.

Reversed.

Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur.

Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., and Long, Circuit-Judge, concur in the opinion and judgment.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1932: 11934: 11953: 11961: 11966: 119322026peak 1932 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. City of Coral Gables v. Hepkins144 So. 385 (Fla. 1932)
  2. Lambert v. Heaton134 So. 2d 536 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961)
  3. George A. Hormel & Co. v. Ackman158 So. 171 (Fla. 1934)
  4. State v. Maxie66 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1953)
  5. Morris v. American Bankers Insurance Co. of Florida184 So. 2d 906 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

Most recent

  1. Morris v. American Bankers Insurance Co. of Florida184 So. 2d 906 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)
  2. Lambert v. Heaton134 So. 2d 536 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961)
  3. State v. Maxie66 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1953)
  4. George A. Hormel & Co. v. Ackman158 So. 171 (Fla. 1934)
  5. City of Coral Gables v. Hepkins144 So. 385 (Fla. 1932)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list