Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Aultman

61 Fla. 198
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided January 15, 1911·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[199]*199On Rehearing.

Per Curiam.

Tlie court did not overlook any oí the contentions of the plaintiff in error. A single motion to vacate a judgment by default and to allow the filing of pleas tendered with the motion was denied by the trial court; and as no showing was made for vacating the default judgment the denial of the motion was proper, especially where the pleas are defective. See Garlington v. Priest, 13 Fla., 559; Benedict v. W. T. Hadlow, 52 Fla., 188, 42 South. Rep., 239, Hocker v. Forrester, 53 Fla. 392, 43 South. Rep., 241.

A rehearing is denied.

Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J. concur; Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion. .

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

Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Aultman, 61 Fla. 198 (Fla. 1911).

61 Fla. 198 (Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Aultman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Parrish v. State
14 So. 2d 171 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1943)
Pavlis v. Atlas-Imperial Diesel Engine Co.
172 So. 57 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)