Enfinger v. Baxley

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtROBERTS; TERRELL, C. J., THOMAS and O'CONNELL, JJ., and ALLEN
Citation96 So.2d 538
Decision Date31 July 1957
PartiesDan E. ENFINGER, Petitioner, v. Loudoun Warren BAXLEY, Respondent.

Page 538

96 So.2d 538
Dan E. ENFINGER, Petitioner,
v.
Loudoun Warren BAXLEY, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Florida.
July 31, 1957.

Page 539

Kurz, Maness & Toole, Jacksonville, for petitioner.

Bedell & Bedell, Jacksonville, for respondent.

ROBERTS, Justice.

We here review on certiorari an order of the lower court denying defendant-petitioner Enfinger's motion to dismiss for improper venue. The plea of privilege was properly made by motion to dismiss, Inverness Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. McDaniel, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 100; and an order denying a motion to dismiss for improper venue may be reviewed by this court on certiorari. Kauffman v. King, fla.1956, 89 So.2d 24.

The facts are that the plaintiff-respondent Baxley, a resident of Polk County, Florida, filed suit in the Circuit Court of Duval County against Enfinger, also a Polk County resident, for injuries sustained in Polk County allegedly as a result of Enfinger's negligence. Joined as a party defendant was the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, Enfinger's employer. The railroad company, a foreign corporation, has an agent in and does business in both Polk County and Duval County.

The question here is whether in these circumstances the lower court erred in denying defendant Enfinger's plea of privilege to be sued in Polk County, the county of his residence and where the cause of action accrued, as granted to him by Section 46.01, Fla.Stat.1955, F.S.A. The answer to this question depends upon the effect of Section 46.02 and Section 46.04 on the rights of the parties.

Sec. 46.02 provides that 'Suits against two or more defendants residing in different counties * * * may be brought in any county * * * in which any defendant

Page 540

resides.' Sec. 46.04 provides that suits against a foreign corporation doing business in this state 'shall be commenced in a county * * * wherein such company may have an agent or other representative, or where the cause of action accrued * * *'.

In L. B. McLeod Const. Co. v. State, 1932, 106 Fla. 805, 143 So. 594, 596, this court applied Section 4220, C.G.L.1927 (Section 46.02, supra), in determining a venue question presented in a suit against two corporate defendants and held that 'where two corporations are otherwise properly joined as defendants in an action, the action may be maintained against both corporate defendants in a county in which one of the defendants, if a domestic corporation, 'shall have or usually keep an office for the transaction of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 practice notes
  • Thoman v. Ashley, No. 4548
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 18, 1964
    ...trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction. E. g. Kauffman v. King, Fla.App.,1956, 89 So.2d 24; cf. Enfinger v. Baxley, Fla .1957, 96 So.2d 538. We recently granted the writ to review an interlocutory order at law where it appeared that the order sought to be reviewed was likely to res......
  • Cicero v. Paradis, No. 4921
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 23, 1966
    ...Doonan v. Poole, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 504. See Santa Rosa County v. Trobuck, 77 Fla. 86, 80 So. 748; Enfinger v. Baxley, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 538; Peterson v. Kirk, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 656. To hold otherwise would be to nullify the venue statute which gives the plaintiff the right to f......
  • Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Ganey, No. 59-513
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 19, 1960
    ...Doonan v. Poole, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 504. See Santa Rosa County v. Trobuck, 77 Fla. 86, 80 So. 748; Enfinger v. Baxley, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 538; Peterson v. Kirk, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 656. To hold otherwise would be to nullify the venue statute which gives the plaintiff the right to f......
  • Brown v. Nagelhout, No. SC10–868.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • March 15, 2012
    ...Specifically, we address a limitation placed on the selection of venue—known as the joint residency rule—derived from Enfinger v. Baxley, 96 So.2d 538 (Fla.1957), which held that the selection of venue based on residency was limited to the county of residence shared by the individual defend......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
38 cases
  • Thoman v. Ashley, No. 4548
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 18, 1964
    ...trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction. E. g. Kauffman v. King, Fla.App.,1956, 89 So.2d 24; cf. Enfinger v. Baxley, Fla .1957, 96 So.2d 538. We recently granted the writ to review an interlocutory order at law where it appeared that the order sought to be reviewed was likely to res......
  • Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Ganey, No. 59-513
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 19, 1960
    ...Doonan v. Poole, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 504. See Santa Rosa County v. Trobuck, 77 Fla. 86, 80 So. 748; Enfinger v. Baxley, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 538; Peterson v. Kirk, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 656. To hold otherwise would be to nullify the venue statute which gives the plaintiff the right to f......
  • Brown v. Nagelhout, No. SC10–868.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • March 15, 2012
    ...Specifically, we address a limitation placed on the selection of venue—known as the joint residency rule—derived from Enfinger v. Baxley, 96 So.2d 538 (Fla.1957), which held that the selection of venue based on residency was limited to the county of residence shared by the individual defend......
  • Cicero v. Paradis, No. 4921
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 23, 1966
    ...Doonan v. Poole, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 504. See Santa Rosa County v. Trobuck, 77 Fla. 86, 80 So. 748; Enfinger v. Baxley, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 538; Peterson v. Kirk, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 656. To hold otherwise would be to nullify the venue statute which gives the plaintiff the right to f......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT