C.w. Zaring & Co. v. Humphreys

Decision Date17 June 1914
CitationC.w. Zaring & Co. v. Humphreys, 65 So. 665, 68 Fla. 6 (Fla. 1914)
PartiesC. W. ZARING & CO. v. HUMPHREYS.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Error to Circuit Court, Suwanee County; W. F. Horne, Judge.

Action by C. W. Zaring & Co., a corporation, against A. Lee Humphreys. Judgment for defendant for costs alone, and plaintiff brings error. Writ of error dismissed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

A judgment for costs alone, though entered for the defendant after a verdict in his favor, will not support a writ of error; since such a judgment does not adjudicate the merits of the cause or dispose of the action, and is consequently not a final judgment.

Where a writ of error purports to be taken to a final judgment, and no final judgment appears in the transcript of the record proper, the court should not proceed to consider the errors assigned, but should dismiss the writ of error, whether a motion be made for that purpose or not.

COUNSEL D. M. Gornto, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.

Humphreys & Blackwell, of Live Oak, for defendant in error.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In an action brought by the corporation against A. Lee Humphreys as an indorser before delivery of certain promissory notes there was a directed verdict for the defendant, on which a judgment was rendered that:

'The defendant, A. Lee Humphreys, do have and recover of and from the plaintiff, C. W. Zaring & Co., a corporation, * * * the sum of $5.40, here taxed as his costs.'

There was no other judgment for the defendant. A writ of error was taken by the plaintiff corporation.

A judgment for costs alone, though entered for the defendant after a verdict in his favor, will not support a writ of error, since such a judgment does not adjudicate the merits of the cause or dispose of the action, and is consequently not a final judgment. Graves v. J. M. Harris & Bro., 61 Fla. 254, 54 So. 390; Dexter v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 52 Fla. 250, 42 So. 695; Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353, 33 So. 982; Goldring v. Reid, 60 Fla. 78, 53 So. 503.

Where a writ of error purports to be taken to a final judgment, and no final judgment appears in the transcript of the record proper, the court should not proceed to consider the errors assigned, but should dismiss the writ of error, whether a motion be made for that purpose or not. Flournoy v Interstate Electric Co., 61 Fla. 214, 55 So. 983.

Attention is called to the fact that the transcript does not contain an exception to the order...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
7 cases
  • State Road Dept. v. Crill
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • May 5, 1930
    ...(Flournoy v. Interstate Elec. Co., 61 Fla. 214, 55 So. 983; S. A. L. Ry. Co. v. Bennett, 47 Fla. 215, 36 So. 86; Zaring & Co. v. Humphreys, 68 Fla. 6, 65 So. 665; Goldring v. Reid, 60 Fla. 78, 53 So. 503), and court will not consider the errors assigned. Graves v. J. M. Harris & Bro., 61 Fl......
  • Walker v. Tyner (In re Estate of Mcdade)
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • July 10, 1923
  • Noble v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 17, 1914
  • Martin v. Hosmer
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • September 26, 1929
    ... ... Co., 61 Fla. 214, 55 So. 983; ... Strouse v. Hall, 62 Fla. 394, 56 So. 946; Zaring ... v. Humphreys, 68 Fla. 6, 65 So. 665 ... Neither ... the record proper nor the bill ... ...
  • Get Started for Free