Georgia Casualty Co. v. O'Donnell

147 So. 267, 109 Fla. 290
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMarch 24, 1933
StatusPublished
Cited by36 cases

This text of 147 So. 267 (Georgia Casualty Co. v. O'Donnell) 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
Georgia Casualty Co. v. O'Donnell, 147 So. 267, 109 Fla. 290 (Fla. 1933).

Opinion

Whitehurst, Circuit Judge.

The sole question presented by the record in this case is whether the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, had jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the foreclosure of a mortgage on lands lying wholly within Liberty County, Florida. The lower court decided the question in the negative and the present appeal is from that order. It is the contention of appellant that the suit may be brought either in the county where the defendants reside or in the county where the property in litigation is.

Section 4219, Compiled General Laws of Florida, 1927 (2579 R. G. S.) is as' follows:

“Suits shall be begun only in the county (or if the suit is in the justice of the peace court in the justice’s district) where the defendants reside, or where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is. . If brought in any county or justice district where the defendant does not reside, the plaintiff, or some person in his behalf, shall make and filé with the praecipe or bill in chancery, an affidavit that the suit is brought in good faith, and with no intention to annoy the defendant. This section shall not apply to suits against non-residents. (Nov. 21, 1829, Sec. 7 and Ch. 3721, Acts of 1887, Sec. 1.)”

Section 4889 of Compiled General Laws of Florida, 1927 (3105 R. G. S.) is as follows:

“All provisions' of law governing locality of actions at law shall, when they can' be made .applicable, govern those in chancery.”

*292 This Court is committed to the doctrine that the venue statute allowing suits to be brought in the county where the defendants reside does not confer extra territorial jurisdiction on the courts or alter the local action rule. The authority of thq statute to bring suit in the county of defendant’s residence necessarily presuppos'es that the court have jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action, as well as of the parties. See Lakeland Ideal Farms and Drainage District v. Mitchell, 97 Fla. 890, 122 So., 516.

The Circuit Court in this State, under our Constitution and laws, cannot by its officers take possession of property beyond its territorial limits. State v. J. P. & M. R. R. Co., 15 Fla. 201, Text 285.

A proceeding in rem or in the nature of a proceeding- rem should be brought in the countv where the ’"'"A lie-?. Largo Land Co. v. Skipper, 98 Fla. 541, 123 So., 915.

A suit to foreclose a mortgage is to a certain extent and for certain purposes a proceeding in rem since it is primarily directed against the mortgaged property, but it is more accurately termed "quasi in rem." See 42 C. J. Sec. 1504.

The rule is' stated that in those states where the mortgage is considered a mere lien and the legal title remains in the mortgagor, the decree operates to deprive the mortgagor of that estate, and therefore the action would be regarded as local. If a sale of the property is asked for, as this operates in rem, jurisdiction is restricted to the local court of the county in which the land lies. Jones on Mortgages (7th Edition), Sec. 1444.

At common law a mortgagee took legal title to the mortgaged property and foreclosure was to terminate the mortgagor’s' right to redeem. In this state a mortgage is a mere lien and does not vest title in the mortgagee. Under the *293 statute the mortgagee has only a lien and foreclosure is for the purpose of enforcing it. Connor v. Connor, 59 Fla. 467, 52 So., 727. Strict foreclosure in this State is not permitted, but the equitable remedy of the mortgagee is a sale of the property to pay his debt. Brown v. Brown, 17 Fla. 607.

The method of foreclosure in this' State is to have the mortgaged property sold under an order of the Court and-the proceeds applied in payment of the mortgage debt. The primary purpose of the suit is to subject the mortgaged property to the pavment of the debt. The action is quasi in rem and local. The fact that other relief such as the entry of a judgment for deficiency may be granted does not change the rule. The suit must be brought in the county where the land lies. If the mortgaged land lies' in more than one county, -the statute provides that the suit may be brought in any county in which a part of the mortgaged property is situated. See Sec. 5749 of Compiled General Laws of Florida, 1927, Sec. 3486 R. G. S.

There was no error in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the bill.

Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

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

Related

Aluia v. Dyck-O'Neal, Inc.
205 So. 3d 768 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Tubbs v. Mechanik Nuccio Hearne & Wester, P.A.
125 So. 3d 1034 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Frym v. Flagship Community Bank
96 So. 3d 452 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Royal Palm Corporate Center Ass'n v. PNC Bank, NA
89 So. 3d 923 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Cukierman v. BankAtlantic
89 So. 3d 250 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
SAAD Homes, Inc. v. Rivero
23 So. 3d 862 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Ocean Bank v. STATE, DEPT. OF FIN. SERVICES
902 So. 2d 833 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Vl Orlando Building Corp. v. Agd Hosp. Design & Purchasing, Inc.
762 So. 2d 956 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Hudlett v. Sanderson
715 So. 2d 1050 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
St. Johns River Water Management District v. Paradise Fruit Co.
669 So. 2d 361 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Tavernier Towne Associates v. Eagle National Bank of Miami
593 So. 2d 306 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Spector v. Old Town Key West Development, Ltd.
567 So. 2d 1017 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Sierra v. International Medical Centers, Inc.
538 So. 2d 102 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
STATE, DNR v. Antioch University
533 So. 2d 869 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Goedmakers v. Goedmakers
520 So. 2d 575 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1988)
Baumann v. Community Villas Partners, Ltd.
517 So. 2d 794 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Publix Super Markets v. Cheesbro Roofing
502 So. 2d 484 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Harvey v. Mattes
484 So. 2d 1382 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Royal v. Parado
462 So. 2d 849 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
147 So. 267, 109 Fla. 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-casualty-co-v-odonnell-fla-1933.