Aboandandolo v. Vonella
| Decision Date | 04 April 1956 |
| Parties | Renzo ABOANDANDOLO, also known as Renzo Abbondandolo, Appellant, v. John VONELLA, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Mallory Horne, Tallahassee, and Norman R. Lyons, Miami, for appellant.
Padgett & Teasley, Miami, for appellee.
August 13, 1953, New Jersey Department of Labor and Industry, Division of Workmen's compensation, entered a determination, Award and Rule for Judgment, hereinafter referred to as Rule for Judgment, against appellant in favor of appellee. Having failed and refused to pay said Rule for Judgment, as required by the law of New Jersey, the plaintiff (appellee) caused it to be accelerated by an order entered in the Monmouth County Court, Law Division, the effect of which was to render said Rule for Judgment due and payable immediately as shown by copy thereof attached as Exhibit B.
In addition to the foregoing allegations, the complaint filed in the courts of this state to realize on the Rule for Judgment alleges that by reason of his default defendant became indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $23,816.87, with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum as provided by the law of New Jersey, all of which remains unpaid. A motion to dismiss the complaint was overruled, answer was filed, a motion to strike the material allegations thereof was overruled and final judgment for the plaintiff was entered in the sum of $25,416.57, with costs in the sum of $17.20. We are confronted with an appeal from the final judgment.
As previously suggested, the purpose of this suit is to recover on the New Jersey judgment in the courts of this state. Appellant challenges the validity of the New Jersey judgment for lack of juridiction over the parties and the subject matter.
The answer to this question turns on whether or not the statute of limitations of New Jersey had run against appellee's claim. In United Mercantile Agencies v. Bissonnette, 155 Fla. 22, 19 So.2d 466, 155 A.L.R. 916, this court held that courts of the forum are not charged with judicial notice of the law of other states, hence they must be pleaded and proven as ultimate facts. This doctrine was modified by Chapter 25110, Acts of 1949, Sec. 92.031, F.S.1955, F.S.A., which provides that every court of this state shall take judicial notice of the common law and the statutes of every state, territory and other jurisdictions of the United States, but that such notice does not operate automatically in every case. The party who intends to take advantage of it must give reasonable notice to the adverse party or parties in the pleadings or otherwise and should produce supporting authorities. Peterson v. Paoli, Fla., 44 So.2d 639, 16 A.L.R.2d 1094; Kingston v. Quimby, Fla., 80 So.2d 455.
Appellant's answer to the complaint did not allege that the New Jersey statute of limitations could not be waived and being so, he could not offer proof of it at the trial, nor can he take advantage of his failure to do so on appeal. In this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morsani v. Major League Baseball
...has long been recognized in Florida. See, e.g., Kissimmee Util. Auth. v. Better Plastics, Inc., 526 So.2d 46 (Fla.1988); Aboandandolo v. Vonella, 88 So.2d 282 (Fla.1956); Akin v. City of Miami, 65 So.2d 54 We must acknowledge that a strict reading of Sullivan, as applied by the trial court,......
-
Movielab, Inc. v. Davis, 68--226
...courts of this State. See: Lanigan v. Lanigan, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 92; Kingston v. Quimby, Fla.1955, 80 So.2d 455; Aboandandolo v. Vonella, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 282; Miller v. Shulman, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 589; Hieber v. Hieber, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 646; Cordrey v. Cordrey, Fla.App.1968,......
-
Jorge v. Rosen
...several reasons. First, the matter was not pleaded nor brought to the trial court's attention by appropriate pleadings. Aboandandolo v. Vonella, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 282; Miller v. Schulman, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 589. Second, the case was not tried nor evidence presented which would go to t......
-
Ramos v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
...673 So.2d 163, 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and is waived if not plead, see Barnett Bank of Palm Beach, 493 So.2d at 448; Aboandandolo v. Vonella, 88 So.2d 282, 284 (Fla.1956). The fact that an action is time-barred does not mean that the court is automatically divested of its inherent power to......