C.w. Zaring & Co. v. Humphreys
| Decision Date | 17 June 1914 |
| Citation | 68 Fla. 6,65 So. 665 |
| Parties | C. W. ZARING & CO. v. HUMPHREYS. |
| Court | Florida 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
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.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Road Dept. v. Crill
...(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)
- Noble v. State
-
Martin v. Hosmer
... ... 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 ... ...