Maule Industries, Inc. v. MacDonald Engineering Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Maule Industries, Inc. v. MacDonald Engineering Co.

296 So. 2d 512, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 6964

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 18, 1974

DocketNo. 73-1499

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 296 So. 2d 512 (Maule Industries, Inc. v. MacDonald Engineering Co.) 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

Maule Industries, Inc. v. MacDonald Engineering Co., 296 So. 2d 512, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 6964 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In September, 1972, the trial judge dismissed a third party complaint filed by Maulé Industries, the original defendant in a negligence action. Thereafter in June of 1973, without leave of court, it filed an amended third party complaint which was met with a motion to dismiss. The trial court dismissed same and this appeal followed. We affirm.

The ruling of September, 1972 was a final adjudication of the merits of the third party complaint; there was no provision for leave to amend, none was requested, and the amendment filed without permission in June of 1973 was out of order and the trial court was correct in dismissing same. Capers v. Lee, Fla.1956, 91 So.2d 337; Hinchee v. Fisher, Fla.1957, 93 So.2d 351; Hammac v. Windham, Fla.App. 1960, 119 So.2d 822; Rule 1.420 RCP, 30 F.S.A. page 462 and Committee note (b), page 465. To do otherwise would permit the parties at their option, without leave of the trial court, to keep the cause from coming at issue.

Therefore, the order under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In September, 1972, the trial judge dismissed a third party complaint filed by Maulé Industries, the original defendant in a negligence action. Thereafter in June of 1973, without leave of court, it filed an amended third party complaint which was met with a motion to dismiss. The trial court dismissed same and this appeal followed. We affirm.

The ruling of September, 1972 was a final adjudication of the merits of the third party complaint; there was no provision for leave to amend, none was requested, and the amendment filed without permission in June of 1973 was out of order and the trial court was correct in dismissing same. Capers v. Lee, Fla.1956, 91 So.2d 337; Hinchee v. Fisher, Fla.1957, 93 So.2d 351; Hammac v. Windham, Fla.App. 1960, 119 So.2d 822; Rule 1.420 RCP, 30 F.S.A. page 462 and Committee note (b), page 465. To do otherwise would permit the parties at their option, without leave of the trial court, to keep the cause from coming at issue.

Therefore, the order under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 So. 2d 512, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 6964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maule-industries-inc-v-macdonald-engineering-co-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack