Gates v. Hayner

22 Fla. 325
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJanuary 15, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 22 Fla. 325 (Gates v. Hayner) 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
Gates v. Hayner, 22 Fla. 325 (Fla. 1886).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Raney

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellees, who were defendants, demurred and on the same day filed pleas to the declaration. The only entries in the nature of a judgment of the court are, one of “ demurrer’ sustained ” which is signed by the Judge, he also noting an exception by the plaintiff to his rulings; and another, of above motion overruled ” made on a motion of the plaintiff to set aside the above “ order sustaining the demurrer.” These do not constitute a final judgment. The latter entry merely left the former standing in full [326]*326force and effect. The former entry did not make a final disposition of the case, and as affecting such a disposition is no more than an order upon which a formal final judgment sustaining the demurrer, and that the plaintiff take nothing by his declaration, and that the defendant recover his costs, might be entered. Until there is an entry of a final judgment terminating the case, no appeal or writ of error lies to this court in a common law action. Chapter 3430, p. 53, of the acts of 1883, does not change this rule.

Where a plaintiff whose declaration has been demurred to successfully does not desire to amend, but wishes to rest on the pleading as it stands, he must suffer final judgment upon the action to go against him, and until there has been an entry of a judgment disposing of the action he cannot obtain a review of the ruling, under our statutes. Though the demurrer has been sustained by the entry made, yet the action is still pending, and as long as it is this court cannot touch the case. Sedgwick vs. Dawkins,, 17 Fla., 811, 555 ; 18 ib., 335 ; Savage vs. The State, 19 Fla., 561; Anderson vs. Presbyterian Church, 13 ib., 592 ; Branch vs. Branch, 5 ib., 447; Harrison vs. Thurston & Buist, 11 ib., 307 ; Cook vs. Cook, 18 Fla., 634; Coons vs. Harllee, 17 ib., 484.

There is a bill of exceptions in the record setting forth the ruling of the Judge on the demurrer. Neither an exception nor a bill of exceptions is necessary where the error, if there be any, is apparent npon the record, but the office of a bill is to incorporate into the record matters which otherwise would remain in pais. Jones vs. McCallum, 21 Fla.; Sams vs. King, 18 Fla., 553 ; Pittman, Admr., vs. Myrick, 16 Fla., 692.

The appeal must be dismissed, and it will be so ordered.

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

Related

Russell v. Russell
507 So. 2d 661 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Weinmann v. Ligon
105 So. 2d 204 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1958)
Elliott v. Lazar
104 So. 2d 618 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1958)
Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels
99 So. 2d 719 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1958)
Howard v. Ziegler
40 So. 2d 776 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1949)
Goldfarb v. Bronston
17 So. 2d 300 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1944)
Westbrook Trust Co. v. Swett
21 A.2d 589 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1941)
Hanley v. Gables Trust Co.
3 So. 2d 725 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1941)
State of Ohio Ex Rel. v. Comstock, Et Vir
1 So. 2d 564 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1941)
State Road Department v. Crill
128 So. 412 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Goldring v. Reid
60 Fla. 78 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1910)
Cutler & Neilson Paint & Color Co. v. Hinman
89 P. 267 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1907)
State ex rel. Alexander v. Landis
50 Fla. 283 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1905)
Morrison v. McCaskill
46 Fla. 233 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1903)
Marsh v. Bennett
46 Fla. 241 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1903)
Heinberg Bros. v. Thompson
46 Fla. 242 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1903)
Ropes v. Eldridge
39 Fla. 47 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1897)
Vanhorne, Griffin & Co. v. Henderson
37 Fla. 354 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1896)
Tunno v. International Railway & Steamship Co.
34 Fla. 300 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1894)
Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Co. v. Boy
34 Fla. 389 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 Fla. 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gates-v-hayner-fla-1886.