Brooks v. Galicia Steamship Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brooks v. Galicia Steamship Co.

237 So. 2d 582, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6199

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 14, 1970

DocketNo. 69-1094

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 237 So. 2d 582 (Brooks v. Galicia Steamship Co.) 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

Brooks v. Galicia Steamship Co., 237 So. 2d 582, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6199 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By common law certiorari, we are asked to review an order of the civil court of record directing the petitioner, defendant in the trial court, to deposit $5,000.00 in the registry of the court which, in the unsworn complaint, is alleged to be escrow funds.

[583]*583We find no procedure under the law authorizing a common law trial judge to order a deposit in the registry of the court upon an unsworn complaint [prior to answer], no testimony or evidence or other admissions indicating either the character of the monies ordered to be deposited or who has possession of them. To this extent, we find the trial judge departed from the essential requirements of the law in directing the deposit into the registry of the court. See: Kauffman v. King, Fla. 1956, 89 So.2d 24; Leithauser v. Harrison, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 95; HMR Development Corporation v. District Court of the First Judicial District, 152 Colo. 266, 381 P.2d 259; Sanborn v. Blankenheim, 346 Ill.App. 214, 104 N.E.2d 573; City of Philadelphia v. Schofield, 375 Pa. 554, 101 A.2d 625; 23 Am.Jur.2d, Deposits in Court, § 2, p. 737 ; 26A C.J.S. Deposits in Court § 1 d (1), p. 473. Compare Whitaker, Admr. v. Sparkman, 30 Fla. 347, 11 So. 542.

Therefore, the order under review be and it is hereby quashed.

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

PER CURIAM.

By common law certiorari, we are asked to review an order of the civil court of record directing the petitioner, defendant in the trial court, to deposit $5,000.00 in the registry of the court which, in the unsworn complaint, is alleged to be escrow funds.

[583]*583We find no procedure under the law authorizing a common law trial judge to order a deposit in the registry of the court upon an unsworn complaint [prior to answer], no testimony or evidence or other admissions indicating either the character of the monies ordered to be deposited or who has possession of them. To this extent, we find the trial judge departed from the essential requirements of the law in directing the deposit into the registry of the court. See: Kauffman v. King, Fla. 1956, 89 So.2d 24; Leithauser v. Harrison, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 95; HMR Development Corporation v. District Court of the First Judicial District, 152 Colo. 266, 381 P.2d 259; Sanborn v. Blankenheim, 346 Ill.App. 214, 104 N.E.2d 573; City of Philadelphia v. Schofield, 375 Pa. 554, 101 A.2d 625; 23 Am.Jur.2d, Deposits in Court, § 2, p. 737 ; 26A C.J.S. Deposits in Court § 1 d (1), p. 473. Compare Whitaker, Admr. v. Sparkman, 30 Fla. 347, 11 So. 542.

Therefore, the order under review be and it is hereby quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 So. 2d 582, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-galicia-steamship-co-fladistctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack