Catchings v. Florida-mccracken Concrete Pipe Co.
| Decision Date | 06 June 1931 |
| Citation | 135 So. 561,101 Fla. 792 |
| Parties | CATCHINGS v. FLORIDA-McCRACKEN CONCRETE PIPE CO. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Seminole County; W. W. Wright, Judge.
Action by Emory Catchings, a minor, by his next friend, Tom Catchings, his father, against Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Company. To review an adverse judgment, plaintiff brings error.
Dismissed.
COUNSEL Shepard & Wahl, of Cocoa, for plaintiff in error.
Crawford & May, of Jacksonville, for defendant in error.
A writ of error was taken to the following:
'The Court having directed a verdict for Defendant herein on December 20th, and said Jury having returned a verdict for Defendant, judgment is hereby rendered herein for the Defendant above named.'
This may be regarded as an order that an appropriate judgment for the defendant be duly entered, but it is not such a final judgment as will support a writ of error. The words, 'judgment is hereby rendered herein for the defendant,' are not the equivalent of words that the plaintiff 'take nothing by his suit, and that the defendant go hence without day,' or words of like legal import. See Pensacola B. & T. Co. v. N. B. of St. Petersburg, 58 Fla. 340, 50 So. 414; Milteer v. S. A. L. Ry. Co., 65 Fla. 357, 61 So. 749; Young v. Lassiter et al., 87 Fla. 445, 100 So. 362; Flynn-Harris-Bullard Co. v. Hampton et al., 70 Fla. 231, 70 So. 385; Mitchell v. St. Petersburg & Gulf R. Co., 56 Fla. 497, 47 So. 794.
Dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lidsky Vaccaro & Montes, PA v. Morejon
...contain the traditional words of finality is not a final order subject to appellate review. See Catchings v. Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co., 101 Fla. 792, 135 So. 561 (Fla.1931); Armstrong Contracting & Supply Corp. v. Aerospace Industries, Inc., 254 So.2d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Guth......
-
City of Tallahassee v. Big Bend PBA
...language "lends the necessary unequivocal declaration of finality that will support an appeal"), citing Catchings v. Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co., 101 Fla. 792, 135 So. 561 (1931) and Baker v. Colley, 104 So.2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). Because the order appealed from in this case lack......
-
Elliott v. Lazar
...a writ of error. A much similar opinion was expressed in Young v. Lassiter, 87 Fla. 445, 100 So. 362. In Catchings v. Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co., 101 Fla. 792, 135 So. 561, 562, the Supreme Court held that an entry 'judgment is hereby rendered herein for the defendant' is not the e......
-
Bailey v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...Acting C.J., and MANN, J., concur. 1 See Chastain v. Embry (Fla.App.2d 1960), 118 So.2d 33.2 See Catchings v. Fla.-McCracken Concrete Pipe Company (1931), 101 Fla. 792, 135 So. 561; Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, Inc. (Fla.App.3d 1958), 99 So.2d 719; Peaslee v. Michalski (Fla.App.2d 1964), 167 S......