Hobbs v. Fidelity Trust Co., Inc.

119 So. 134, 96 Fla. 807
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedDecember 18, 1928
StatusPublished

This text of 119 So. 134 (Hobbs v. Fidelity Trust Co., Inc.) 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
Hobbs v. Fidelity Trust Co., Inc., 119 So. 134, 96 Fla. 807 (Fla. 1928).

Opinion

Buford, J.

The appeal here is from an order entering a decree pro confesso and a final decree. The decree pro confesso was entered upon the theory that the answer of the defendant Beverly Smith presented a counter claim and therefore required an answer thereto from Hobbs the appellant.

The answer of Smith fails to set up a counter claim and required no answer. Turner et al, v. Utley et al, 93 Fla. 910; 112 So. R. 837.

*808 The entry of decree pro confesso was error. The final decree against Hobbs based on the decree pro confesso is error. The Bill of Complaint, the answer of Hobbs and the replication thereto present an issue which demands adjudication in accordance with such evidence as may be adduced touching the same.

Reversed.

Whitfield, P. J. and Terrell and Buford, ,J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

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

Related

Turner v. Utley
112 So. 837 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 So. 134, 96 Fla. 807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hobbs-v-fidelity-trust-co-inc-fla-1928.