Alabama Hotel Co. v. J.L. Mott Iron Works

• Decision Date: 07 January 1924
• Parties: ALABAMA HOTEL CO. v. J. L. MOTT IRON WORKS.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

98 So. 825

86 Fla. 608

ALABAMA HOTEL CO. v. J. L. MOTT IRON WORKS.

Florida Supreme Court

January 7, 1924

Error to Circuit Court, Seminole County; James W. Perkins, Judge.

Action by the J. L. Mott Irom Works against the Alabama Hotel Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

On motions at common law court of record could vacate or amend own orders and decrees during term at which made. With respect to the authority of a court over its orders judgments, etc., the rule of the common law was in effect that a court of record had absolute control over its own orders, decrees, etc., and could vacate or amend them at any time during the term at which they were made.

Judgment under control of court during term at which rendered or entered of record, passes beyond control of court after term at which rendered, unless proceedings by motion or otherwise to set aside or correct taken during term time; remedy stated for correction of errors, where term at which judgment rendered has ended. It is a general rule of law that all the judgments, decrees, or other orders of the courts, however conclusive in their character, are under the control of the court which pronounces them during the term at which they are rendered or entered of record, and they may then be set aside, vacated, modified, or annulled by that court. But it is a rule equally well established that after the term has ended all final judgments and decrees of the court pass beyond its control, unless steps be taken during that term by motion or otherwise, to set aside, modify, or correct hem and, if errors exist, they can only be corrected by such proceeding by a writ of error or appeal as may be allowed in a court which by law can review the decision.

Interlocutory judgments or decrees may be modified or rescinded on sufficient grounds before final judgment. It is also well settled that interlocutory judgments or decrees made in the progress of a cause are always under the control of the court until final disposition of the suit, and they may be modified or rescinded upon sufficient grounds shown any time before final judgment, should it be after the term in which made.

Motions or orders, if procured through fraud, collusion, or mistake, may be vacated or modified any time. Orders, decrees, or judgments, made through fraud, collusion, deceit, or mistake, may be opened, vacated, or modified at any time, on the proper showing made by the parties injured.

Motion to vacate addressed to sound discretion of trial judge; order on motion to vacate not disturbed, unless abuse of discretion shown. A motion to vacate or set aside a judgment or decree is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial court on the particular facts of the case; and consequently its determination will not be disturbed on appeal, unless it is plain that its discretion has been abused.

COUNSEL

Newell & Boyer, of Orlando, for plaintiff in error.

Louie W. Strum, of Jacksonville, for defendant in error.

OPINION

TERRELL J.

In January, 1922, J. L. Mott Iron Works instituted a common-law suit against Henry Raehn in the circuit court of Orange county for goods, wares, and merchandise in the sum of $17,000. In this suit writs of garnishment were issued and served on various parties supposed to be indebted to defendant, one of which was Alabama Hotel Company, a corporation, plaintiff in error here.

Defendant, Raehn, moved to dissolve the garnishment against Alabama Hotel Company, which motion was granted, and the order of the court to that effect was signed, filed, and recorded March 8, 1922. On March 10, 1922, the court made and entered an order vacating the order of March 9, dissolving said garnishment, and set the same down for final hearing March 20, 1922; the order of the court to this effect being in part as follows:

'It further appearing to the court that the court did not fully understand the agreement, which was made in chambers at the time that it was made, * * * the court now being further advised in the premises, and having considered the matter as stated above, it is therefore ordered and adjudged that said order made by this court on March 8, 1922, be and the same is hereby vacated.'

On March 20 the matter was fully presented to the court, and on March 30 an order was made and entered, overruling and denying the motion to dissolve the garnishment against Alabama Hotel Company, defendant. Raehn then filed his 'motion for new trial,' directed to the last-named order of the court, which was subsequently abandoned. On petition of said Raehn for change of venue, the cause was transferred to the circuit court of Seminole county, where it proceeded to judgment.

On the rule day in May, 1922, Alabama Hotel Company, garnishee, filed its answer to the writ of garnishment, sworn to by its president, admitting that, at the time of service of the writ of garnishment on it, it was due and owing Raehn, the defendant, the sum of $3,500, which answer was traversed by plaintiff, J. L. Mott Iron Works.

On May 30, 1922, when the case came on for trial before a jury, the garnishee, Alabama Hotel Company, applied for leave to amend its former answer, which application was granted. Alabama Hotel Company instanter filed its sworn amended answer, in which it denied that it owed defendant, Raehn, any sum whatever. Plaintiff traversed the amended answer, trial before a jury forthwith ensued, which resulted in a verdict in the sum of $5,201.68 against the garnishee Alabama Hotel Company, on which verdict final judgment was entered, and to which writ of error was taken from this court.

The first error assigned is based on the action of the court below, dated March 10, 1922, vacating his order of March 8, 1922, dissolving the garnishment, and setting same down for final hearing March 20, and on full consideration thereof he entered an order denying the motion to dissolve the said garnishment.

With respect to the authority of a court over its orders, judgments, etc., the rule of the common law was in effect that a court of record had absolute control over its own orders, decrees, etc., and could vacate or amend them any time during the term at which they were made. The Supreme Court of the United States, in Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U.S. 410, 26 L.Ed. 797, has very concisely stated the rule in this country to be as follows:

'It is a general rule of the law that all the judgments, decrees, or other orders of the courts, however conclusive in their character, are under the control of the court which pronounces them during the term at which they are rendered or entered of record, and they may then be set aside, vacated, modified, or annulled by that court. But it is a rule equally well established that, after the term has ended, all final judgments and decrees of the court pass beyond its control, unless steps be taken during that term, by motion or otherwise, to set aside, modify, or correct them; and, if errors exist, they can only be corrected by such proceeding by a writ of error or appeal, as may be allowed in a court which, by law, can review the decision.'

It is also well settled that interlocutory judgments or decrees made in the progress of a cause are always under the control of the court until final disposition of the suit, and they may be modified or rescinded upon sufficient grounds, shown any time before final judgment, should it be after the term in which made. Blythe v. Hinckley (C. C.) 84 F. 228; Miller v. Justice, 86 N.C. 26; State v King,...