Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Daniel

72 Fla. 489
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedDecember 19, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 72 Fla. 489 (Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Daniel) 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
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Daniel, 72 Fla. 489 (Fla. 1916).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

—Lee Daniell brought a bill in equity to enforce a mortgage lien executed June 15, 1915, and recorded June 19, 1915, upon an automobile as the property of W. J. Corner, the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company who claims some interest in the automobile being made a co-defendant. By answer on March 6, 1916, the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company averred in effect that on November 3, 1913, it recovered a judgment in the Circuit Court for Escambia County against W. J. [490]*490Corner doing business as the Corner Garage for $252.04 and $4.38 costs upon which judgment “execution was issued on the 24th day of November, 19x3, which execution according to a return made thereon by the sheriff went into his hands on the 20th day of April, 1914;'’ that on or about August 12, 1915, the sheriff levied said execution on the automobile; that when the execution passed into the hands of the sheriff, April 20, 1914, it became a lien upon the automobile, under which lien the automobile was sold to the defendant company and that said execution lien was superior to the mortgage lien recorded June 19, 1915.

The complainant, on March 14, 1916, set the cause down for hearing on bill and answer, before replication was filed to the answer. The court held the mortgage to be the superior lien and decreed accordingly. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company appealed.

Where the complainant in a bill in chancery sets the cause down for hearing on bill and answer before replication filed to the answer, and, consequently, before the case is at issue, such complainant, in thus shutting the defendant off from proving the truth of his answer, must be held at such hearing to have admitted the truth of all the allegations of the answer, notwithstanding any formal defect in the oath to such answer. Lee v. Bradley Fertilizer Co., 44 Fla. 787, 33 South. Rep. 456; 3 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law & Proc. 1426. The statute dispensing with replications in certain chancery cases, Chap. 6907, Acts of 1915, does not change this rule.

An execution is a lien upon personal property of the defendant in execution from the time such writ shall be delivered to the sheriff. See Love v. Williams, 4 Fla. 126. The cause was set down for hearing on bill and answer, and the answer shows that the lien of the execu[491]*491tion is prior in date to the mortgage lien, therefore the execution lien is superior, and the decree is erroneous.

Decree reversed.

Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hastings v. Furr
177 B.R. 723 (S.D. Florida, 1995)
Trodglen v. Hastings (In Re Trodglen)
155 B.R. 601 (S.D. Florida, 1993)
Interstate Funding Corp. v. Direct Link Cable, Inc.
826 F. Supp. 437 (S.D. Florida, 1993)
Steinbrecher v. Cannon
501 So. 2d 659 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Seidle v. Gonzalez (In Re Belize Airways Ltd.)
20 B.R. 817 (S.D. Florida, 1982)
Salina Mfg. Co. v. Diner's Club, Inc.
382 So. 2d 1309 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Flagship State Bank of Jacksonville v. Carantzas
352 So. 2d 1259 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Smith v. Purdy
272 So. 2d 545 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1973)
Peoples Bank in North Fort Myers v. Finn Machinery Co.
232 So. 2d 194 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)
Black v. Miller
219 So. 2d 106 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)
Early & Daniel Co. v. Brown
22 Fla. Supp. 155 (Duval County Court of Record, 1961)
Douglass, Et Vir v. Tax Equities, Inc.
198 So. 578 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)
Blackstone Holding Co. v. Lawrence
192 So. 198 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Seaboard Oil Co. v. Donovan
128 So. 821 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Miami Hardware Paint & Glass Co. v. Magic City Building Co.
117 So. 704 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1928)
Johnson v. Sumner
90 So. 171 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 Fla. 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodyear-tire-rubber-co-v-daniel-fla-1916.