Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Miami v. J. N. Rawleigh Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Miami v. J. N. Rawleigh Co.

156 So. 2d 180

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 9, 1963

DocketNo. 3814

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 156 So. 2d 180 (Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Miami v. J. N. Rawleigh 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

Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Miami v. J. N. Rawleigh Co., 156 So. 2d 180 (Fla. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Garnishee, Seven-Up Bottling Company of Miami, Inc., appeals a final judgment of garnishment in the amount of $4,088.60 plus costs and interest in favor of plaintiff, J. N. Rawleigh Company.

The garnishee failed to answer the Writ of Garnishment and default judgment was entered. An oral motion to vacate the default was denied and the garnishee subsequently attempted to raise the defense of no debt in the response to the Writ of Scire Facias.

It is well settled that defenses available to the original Writ of Garnish[181]*181ment are not available in response to the Writ of Scire Facias. The purpose of the latter writ is to give the party against whom execution is about to issue, notice so that he may urge defenses which have arisen after creation of the original record. See and compare Barrow v. Bailey, 1853, 5 Fla. 9; Gilchrist v. Meacham, 1850, 3 Fla. 219, 234 (two cases); Brown v. Harley, 1848, 2 Fla. 159; 29 Fla.Jur. Scire Facias §2; 3 Fla.Jur. Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 112, 114; Rule 2.12 Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A.; Chapter 77 Florida Statutes, F.S.A.

We have carefully considered the other assignments of error urged on appeal and find no error.

Affirmed.

SMITH, C. J., and WHITE and SHANNON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Garnishee, Seven-Up Bottling Company of Miami, Inc., appeals a final judgment of garnishment in the amount of $4,088.60 plus costs and interest in favor of plaintiff, J. N. Rawleigh Company.

The garnishee failed to answer the Writ of Garnishment and default judgment was entered. An oral motion to vacate the default was denied and the garnishee subsequently attempted to raise the defense of no debt in the response to the Writ of Scire Facias.

It is well settled that defenses available to the original Writ of Garnish[181]*181ment are not available in response to the Writ of Scire Facias. The purpose of the latter writ is to give the party against whom execution is about to issue, notice so that he may urge defenses which have arisen after creation of the original record. See and compare Barrow v. Bailey, 1853, 5 Fla. 9; Gilchrist v. Meacham, 1850, 3 Fla. 219, 234 (two cases); Brown v. Harley, 1848, 2 Fla. 159; 29 Fla.Jur. Scire Facias §2; 3 Fla.Jur. Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 112, 114; Rule 2.12 Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A.; Chapter 77 Florida Statutes, F.S.A.

We have carefully considered the other assignments of error urged on appeal and find no error.

Affirmed.

SMITH, C. J., and WHITE and SHANNON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 So. 2d 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seven-up-bottling-co-of-miami-v-j-n-rawleigh-co-fladistctapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack