Huffman v. Heagy

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Huffman v. Heagy

122 So. 2d 335, 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2337

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 28, 1960

DocketNo. 60-268

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 122 So. 2d 335 (Huffman v. Heagy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Huffman v. Heagy, 122 So. 2d 335, 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2337 (Fla. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By this interlocutory appeal, the defendant, Sam Houston Huffman, seeks the reversal of an order at common law relating to jurisdiction over the person. The review of such order is provided by Rule 4.2 Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.- The order appealed is as follows:

“This cause came on to be heard before me on motion to strike, motion to quash and motion to dismiss by the defendant, Sam Houston Huffman, and the court having heard from counsel for the respective parties and being of the opinion that the defendant, by his various motions filed herein has submitted to the jurisdiction of this court even though the service of the summons might be subject to attack, which is not now decided.

“It is Ordered and Adjudged that the motion to quash service is denied.”

The sole question presented by the appellant is whether the court ruled correctly that the defendant had submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court when he filed a motion which questioned the jurisdiction of the court over his person and coupled it with other motions which were addressed to the merits of the cause. In the order appealed, the trial judge expressly declined to pass upon the merits of the motion addressed to the jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. The judge failed to apply Rule 1.11(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., which provides: “No [336]*336defense or objection is waived by being joined with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or motion” and Rule 1.11(g) which provides: “A party who makes a motion under this rule may join with it the other motions herein provided for and then available to him.” State ex rel. Eli Lilly & Company v. Shields, Fla.1955, 83 So.2d 271; Greenberg v. Greenberg, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 608.

Thereupon, the order denying the appellant’s motion addressed to jurisdiction is quashed with directions to the trial judge to proceed to hear said motion upon its merits.

Reversed.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., TJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

By this interlocutory appeal, the defendant, Sam Houston Huffman, seeks the reversal of an order at common law relating to jurisdiction over the person. The review of such order is provided by Rule 4.2 Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.- The order appealed is as follows:

“This cause came on to be heard before me on motion to strike, motion to quash and motion to dismiss by the defendant, Sam Houston Huffman, and the court having heard from counsel for the respective parties and being of the opinion that the defendant, by his various motions filed herein has submitted to the jurisdiction of this court even though the service of the summons might be subject to attack, which is not now decided.

“It is Ordered and Adjudged that the motion to quash service is denied.”

The sole question presented by the appellant is whether the court ruled correctly that the defendant had submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court when he filed a motion which questioned the jurisdiction of the court over his person and coupled it with other motions which were addressed to the merits of the cause. In the order appealed, the trial judge expressly declined to pass upon the merits of the motion addressed to the jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. The judge failed to apply Rule 1.11(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., which provides: “No [336]*336defense or objection is waived by being joined with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or motion” and Rule 1.11(g) which provides: “A party who makes a motion under this rule may join with it the other motions herein provided for and then available to him.” State ex rel. Eli Lilly & Company v. Shields, Fla.1955, 83 So.2d 271; Greenberg v. Greenberg, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 608.

Thereupon, the order denying the appellant’s motion addressed to jurisdiction is quashed with directions to the trial judge to proceed to hear said motion upon its merits.

Reversed.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., TJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 So. 2d 335, 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huffman-v-heagy-fladistctapp-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack