Eaton v. Harrison

132 So. 635, 100 Fla. 1668
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJanuary 10, 1931
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 132 So. 635 (Eaton v. Harrison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eaton v. Harrison, 132 So. 635, 100 Fla. 1668 (Fla. 1931).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This writ.of error is from a final judgment dismissing an action of replevin instituted in the Circuit Court of Volusia County by the plaintiffs in error against the defendants in error. It is contended here that the Court below erred in its order of dismissal and in its order entering final judgment in the cause.

Thé record discloses that various and sundry steps were taken in the cause from the time of its inception in October, *1669 1926; to the date of the order of dismissal in January, 1929, all of which oh the record appear to be regular but immaterial to the question before us. The motion to dismiss was made and granted January 24, 1929, without notice to the plaintiff or their counsel, the cause being at issue on the docket and ready for trial but no date for trial having been set. It appears from the order- of dismissal that the said order was predicated on the fact that diligence had not been exercised by the plaintiff in “suing out a commission to take said depositions” but whether this was a fact or not it is shown that the commission was sued out and the depositions had been taken and were before the Court at the time the order of dismissal was made.

A trial court may in its discretion dismiss a cause for failure to prosecute with diligence in the absence of plausible excuse therefor but no such showing is made here. It appears that the cause was long drawn out but the record is regular and does not warrant dismissal in the manner shown.

We think therefore that in granting the order of dismissal on the showing made the trial court abused its discretion for which the cause must be and is hereby reversed.

Reversed.

Terrell, C. J. and Whitfield, Ellis, Strhm, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

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

Related

Milu, Inc. v. Duke
256 So. 2d 83 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 So. 635, 100 Fla. 1668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eaton-v-harrison-fla-1931.