Grand Lodge, K.P. of North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia, Jurisdiction of Florida v. Stroud

• Citation: 144 So. 324,107 Fla. 152
• Parties: GRAND LODGE KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS OF NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA, EUROPE, ASIA, AFRICA, AND AUSTBALIA, JURISDICTION OF FLORIDA v. STROUD et al.
• Decision Date: 24 October 1932
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida

144 So. 324

107 Fla. 152

GRAND LODGE KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS OF NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA, EUROPE, ASIA, AFRICA, AND AUSTBALIA, JURISDICTION OF FLORIDA v. STROUD et al.

Florida Supreme Court

October 24, 1932

Rehearing Denied Nov. 7, 1932.

En Banc.

Error to Circuit Court, Volusia County; M. G. Rowe, Judge.

Action by Daisy Goodall Stroud, joined by her husband and next friend, James Stroud, against the Grand Lodge, Knights of Pythias of North America, South America, Europe, Asia Africa, and Australia, Jurisdiction of Florida, a corporation. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Motion to quash the writ of error.

Motion to quash denied, and judgment affirmed.

On Petition for Rehearing.

COUNSEL

McGill & McGill, of Jacksonville, and M. S McGregor, of De Land, for plaintiff in error.

Paul W Harvey, of Daytona Beach, for defendant in error.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion to quash a writ of error under section 4639, Comp. Gen. Laws, section 2920, Rev. Gen. St., which provides that courts of error have power to quash proceedings in all cases in which error does not lie, or where they are taken against good faith or merely for delay.

To determine the motion the court has been compelled to make an examination of the voluminous transcript of the record brought here on this appeal, and from such examination the court is satisfied that no reversible error was committed by the court below.

Therefore the motion to quash or dismiss the proceedings in error will be denied and the judgment affirmed on the principles stated by this court in Roberts Bros. v. Langford, 99 Fla. 1268, 128 So. 810.

Affirmed.

WHITFIELD, P.J., and TERRELL and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

BUFORD, C.J., and BROWN, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

On Petition for a Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

The court did not overlook any of the propositions mentioned in the petition for rehearing, when the judgment October 24 1932, was affirmed.

The plea of privilege interposed was so insufficient in form and substance as to be subject to either demurrer or motion to strike. Bass v. Geiger, 73 Fla. 312, 73 So. 796. And after it was ordered stricken, default was properly entered in the absence of any request to be permitted to plead further. Brash v. Ehrman, 56 Fla. 153, 47 So. 937. The stricken plea contained no allegation negativing the fact that the defendant kept an office in Volusia county, so it was wholly and distinctly different in substance from the plea upheld in Prince v. J. Ray Arnold Lumber Co. (Fla.) 141 So. 172.

The default judgment was entered by the circuit judge himself at the time he struck the plea of privilege as frivolous, and it does not appear that prior to, or at that time, the defendant had made any request to be permitted to plead further in the event the motion to strike was granted. So there was no error in entering the default, and...