Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Aultman
| Decision Date | 18 April 1911 |
| Citation | 55 So. 273,61 Fla. 198 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND v. AULTMAN. |
On Rehearing, May 23, 1911.
Error to Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; J. B. Wall, Judge.
Action by S. B. Aultman against the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
See also, 54 So. 1039.
Syllabus by the Court
In preparing assignments of error, each error relied upon should be clearly and distinctly specified and separately assigned.
All the points adjudicated by an appellate court upon a writ of error or an appeal become the law of the case, and are no longer open for discussion or consideration.
On Rehearing.
A single motion to vacate a judgment by default and to allow the filing of pleas tendered with the motion is properly denied when no showing is made for vacating the default judgment, especially where the pleas that are tendered are defective.
COUNSEL J. J. Lunsford and H. P. Baya, for plaintiff in error.
H. S Hampton, for defendant in error.
This case makes its appearance here for the second time. See 58 Fla. 228, 50 So. 991, wherein a statement of the facts will be found. Upon the former writ of error, we reversed the judgment rendered against the plaintiff in error for the reason that it did not appear that the bond sued on was produced and filed in evidence. This omission was supplied at the second trial, which trial again resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Several errors are assigned, but they do not call for any extended discussion.
We would refer to what we said in McKinnon v. Lewis, 60 Fla. ----, 53 So. 940, as to the principles which should guide in the preparation of assignments of error, as some of the assignments in the instant case are open to the same objections which we pointed out there.
As we have repeatedly announced, all the points adjudicated by an appellate court upon a writ of error or an appeal become the law of the case, and are no longer open for discussion or consideration. McKinnon v. Johnson, 57 Fla. 120, 48 So. 910, wherein prior decisions of this court will be found cited, and Purvis v. Frink, 61 Fla. ----, 54 So 862. The application of this principle disposes of several of the contentions of the plaintiff in error. After a careful consideration of the transcript of the record and the briefs of the respective parties, we are of the opinion that substantial justice has been done between the parties, and that no reversible error has been made to appear to us. Therefore the judgment must be affirmed.
On Rehearing.
The court did not overlook any of the contentions of the plaintiff in error.
A single motion to vacate a judgment by default and to allow the filing of pleas tendered with the motion was denied by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial