Coggin v. Barfield
| Decision Date | 12 May 1942 |
| Parties | COGGIN et al. v. BARFIELD. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Merritt & Brown, of Pensacola, and James N. Daniel of Chipley, for plaintiffs in error.
Paul Carter and B. L. Solomon, both of Marianna, for defendant in error.
As a preface to our discussion of the questions presented in this controversy it seems well to give in chronological order the steps of the proceeding culminating in the final judgment which we are asked to review.
On the return day given in the summons ad respondendum the plaintiff filed her declaration, the defendants having a few days before that time lodged their appearance with the clerk. Default was entered on the next rule day for failure of the defendants to plead or demur. The day afterwards a default judgment was entered in accordance with the provisions of the statute and the same day a jury was empanelled and returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The following day the clerk filed the defendants' plea.
Within the week the defendants presented their motion to set aside the default and final judgments representing that their plea was prepared and erroneously forwarded to the clerk of the circuit court for Jackson County,--the cause of action was pending in the adjoining county of Washington--in ample time to be filed on the rule day following the filing of the declaration. It was further stated in the motion that the clerk of the circuit court of Washington County was informed over the telephone by the corresponding officer in Jackson County before the former entered the judgments that the plea had been sent to the latter through mistake and that it was being mailed to the proper office for filing. This situation was fully substantiated by the affidavits of the deputies clerk one from each county, between whom the telephone conversation was held. The circuit judge denied the motion.
The copy of the declaration furnished by attorneys for the plaintiff to adverse counsel bore the title 'Fourteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida Circuit Court of Jackson County' (we have supplied the italics), although the suit was instituted in Washington County. We do not hold the view that this misnomer of the place where the suit pended was calculated to mislead or that it is determinative of the question involved but it does account in some degree for the confusion which resulted in the plea being filed in the wrong office. It has been seen that the default and final judgments were entered the same day that the clerk of the court where the suit was being entertained learned that the plea had been received by the clerk in a neighboring county. Patently, there was no attempt on the part of the defendants to delay the formation of an issue in the case by the filing of a motion, demurrer or any dilatory pleading because a statutory plea was forwarded in ample time to reach its destination on the rule day succeeding the one on which the declaration was filed. When the plea reached the proper office to be filed it was but two days late. Despite these considerations and the diligence shown by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sprung v. Negwer Materials, Inc.
...131 A.2d 294 (D.C.1957); Madden v. Horigan, 66 A.2d 525 (D.C.1949); Bush v. Bush, 63 F.2d 134 (App.D.C.1933); FLORIDA: Coggin v. Barfield, 150 Fla. 551, 8 So.2d 9 (1942); Russ v. Gilbert, 19 Fla. 54 (1882); GEORGIA: Cheeks v. Barnes, 241 Ga. 22, 243 S.E.2d 242 (1978); Thornton v. Hollis, 36......
-
Romeo v. Looks
...reached without the difficulty that arises from a contest by the defendant." Id. at 111, 277 A.2d at 147, quoting Coggin v. Barfield, 150 Fla. 551, 554, 8 So.2d 9, 11 (1942). A court of conscience, as this Court is called upon now to act, should most certainly open the default judgment in t......
-
B. C. Builders Supply Co., Inc. v. Maldonado
...as first enunciated by the Supreme Court of Florida in Russ v. Gilbert, 19 Fla. 54, 57 (1882), cited by the court in Coggin v. Barfield, 150 Fla. 551, 8 So.2d 9 (1942), has been consistently followed by Florida courts, i. e., that "it would be a gross abuse of discretion not to allow a defe......
-
ALLSTATE FLORIDIAN INS. v. RONCO INVENT.
...preventing a dilatory or procrastinating defendant from impeding the plaintiff in the establishment of his claim." Coggin v. Barfield, 150 Fla. 551, 8 So.2d 9, 11 (Fla.1942). In this case, the trial court may have considered that denying Appellees' motion to vacate the default and the defau......