Hall v. Patterson
| Decision Date | 03 March 1903 |
| Citation | 45 Fla. 353,33 So. 982 |
| Parties | HALL v. PATTERSON et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Hamilton County; John F. White, Judge.
Action by Callie Hall against S. J. Patterson and N. J. Patterson. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Dismissed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. A judgment for costs alone, the merits not being adjudicated though entered for defendant after the jury have found a verdict in his favor, is not such final judgment as will support a writ of error.
COUNSEL M. F. Horne, for plaintiff in error.
Johnson & Johnson, for defendants in error.
In an action of ejectment instituted by the plaintiff in error against the defendants in error, there was a verdict for the latter. Thereupon the following judgment was entered: 'It is ordered and adjudge by the court that the defendants, S J. Patterson and N. J. Patterson, do have and recover of and from the plaintiff, Callie Hall, their costs in this behalf expended, taxed by the clerk at seventeen dollars and thirty cents,' and a writ of error thereto was sued out from this court.
A question of jurisdiction confronts us in limine. In common-law actions writs of error lie only from final judgments, with but one exception, not necessary to be noticed here, and the question recurs, is this a final judgment in the meaning of our statute? Are the merits of the controversy finally adjudicated? Is there in fact any adjudication of the merits?
It is apparent that there is no adjudication that the defendants go hence, nor that the plaintiff take nothing by her plaint, nor equivalent language. It is a judgment for costs only, and costs are a mere incident to a right adjudicated, and as such incident cannot be said to include the principal to which they might be incident.
While this point was not exactly decided in the case of Sedgwick v. Dawkins, 18 Fla. 335, it was there held that the addition of the words 'that the plaintiff take nothing by his declaration in this cause,' took that case out of the influence of certain cases cited with apparent approval in that opinion from Texas and Missouri. Among the cases there cited are Higbee v. Bowers, 9 Mo. 354 and Warren v. Shuman, 5 Tex. 441. In the former case the judgment was 'that the defendants pay the complainant his cost herein expended, and that execution issue therefor', and in the latter the entry was: In both cases those courts held that such judgments were not final judgments to which a writ of error would lie. The Texas case was an action of ejectment, and the judgment followed a verdict for the defendant. The court said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caufield v. Cantele
...not final judgments in the sense of final judgments on the merits. See Gray v. Mann, 47 Fla. 162, 37 So. 161 (1904); Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353, 33 So. 982 (1903). Second, where a voluntary dismissal is granted and the court does not award the defendant costs, if the plaintiff sues the ......
-
Keller v. Harrison
...of the litigation. See Oster v. Debereaux, 115 Iowa, 724, 87 N. W. 512;Corley v. Corley, 53 W. Va. 142, 44 S. E. 132;Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353, 33 South. 982; 2 Cyc. 592. Undoubtedly the taxation of costs or a judgment therefor may be reviewed on appeal from the final judgment. Stewart......
-
Goldring v. Reid
... ... This is ... squarely in line with our holding as to what constitutes a ... final judgment for the defendant. See Hall v ... Patterson, 45 Fla. 353, 33 So. 982 ... There ... being no final judgment, it necessarily ... [53 So. 504] ... follows that ... ...
-
Whitaker v. Wright
... ... instituted is at an end.' Mizell Live Stock Co. v ... J. J. McCaskill Co., 57 Fla. 118, 49 So. 501; Hall ... v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353, 33 So. 982 ... In the ... case at bar the record shows the court entered an order of ... nonsuit, but it ... ...