Banco Del Comercio v. Barco

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Banco Del Comercio v. Barco

386 So. 2d 1298, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17489

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 19, 1980

DocketNo. 79-2072

StatusPublished

This text of 386 So. 2d 1298 (Banco Del Comercio v. Barco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Banco Del Comercio v. Barco, 386 So. 2d 1298, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17489 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After filing an action in Colombia, S. A., on a note executed in and payable in Colombia, the appellant filed a subsequent action on the same note in the Circuit Court in and for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. Upon the trial judge concluding that the prior action was still pending in Colombia, he dismissed the second action with prejudice. This appeal ensued.

We sustain the trial judge’s discretion in dismissing the second cause. Hagen v. Viney, 124 Fla. 747, 169 So. 391 (1936); Mc Wane Cast Iron Pipe Corporation v. McDowell-Wellman Engineering Company, 263 A.2d 281 (Del.1970); Fitch v. Whaples, 220 A.2d 170 (Me.1966); Anno. 19 A.L.R.2d 301, 317, § 5. However, we modify it by this opinion to make the dismissal without prejudice. Rashard v. Cappiali, 171 So.2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); National Carloading Corp. v. Gemini Transportation, Inc., 364 So.2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

Affirmed as modified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

After filing an action in Colombia, S. A., on a note executed in and payable in Colombia, the appellant filed a subsequent action on the same note in the Circuit Court in and for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. Upon the trial judge concluding that the prior action was still pending in Colombia, he dismissed the second action with prejudice. This appeal ensued.

We sustain the trial judge’s discretion in dismissing the second cause. Hagen v. Viney, 124 Fla. 747, 169 So. 391 (1936); Mc Wane Cast Iron Pipe Corporation v. McDowell-Wellman Engineering Company, 263 A.2d 281 (Del.1970); Fitch v. Whaples, 220 A.2d 170 (Me.1966); Anno. 19 A.L.R.2d 301, 317, § 5. However, we modify it by this opinion to make the dismissal without prejudice. Rashard v. Cappiali, 171 So.2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); National Carloading Corp. v. Gemini Transportation, Inc., 364 So.2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

Affirmed as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 So. 2d 1298, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banco-del-comercio-v-barco-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack