Harrell v. Martin
| Decision Date | 26 December 1934 |
| Citation | 117 Fla. 754,158 So. 287 |
| Parties | HARRELL v. MARTIN. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Circuit Court, Columbia County; R. H. Rowe, Judge.
Petition for certiorari by W. J. Harrell to review a judgment of the circuit court affirming a judgment of the county court in favor of W. T. Martin.
Judgment of the circuit court quashed, and cause remanded, with directions.
See also, 114 Fla. 147, 154 So. 186.
COUNSEL Cone & Chapman, of Lake City, for petitioner.
A. P Rivers, of Lake City, for respondent.
This case is before us on writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the circuit court of the Third judicial circuit of Florida in and for Columbia county, wherein that court on writ of error affirmed the judgment of the county judge's court in a certain proceeding in forcible entry and detainer.
It is contended here that the judgment of the circuit court should be quashed and the cause remanded for further proceedings amongst other things, because the defendant in the court of original jurisdiction filed certain pleas in defense which he termed equitable pleas, and those pleas were stricken.
It is unnecessary for us to in this case discuss the applicability of equitable pleas in the court of the county judge, or other courts inferior to the circuit court because here we are dealing with a proceeding under the provisions of section 3456 et seq., R. G. S., section 5309 et seq., C. G. L., in regard to forcible entry and unlawful detainer in this state. Section 3466, R. G. S., section 5319, C. G. L., provides in effect that, after the petition has been filed as required by statute, the cause may proceed to trial without any further pleading. Therefore the defendant in such cases is entitled to introduce any and all defenses which would bar the petitioner's right of recovery.
Under the showing made by the record here, the plaintiff claimed his right of recovery upon the theory that he had prior to the 26th day of July, 1933, recovered a judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction against the defendnat, and under such judgment a writ of restitution had been issued and served by divesting the defendant of the possession of the property and placing the petitioner in possession of the property, and that immediately thereafter the defendant unlawfully reentered. At the trial the writ of restitution with the return of the sheriff thereon was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrell v. Martin
...refusing to allow plaintiffs to file an amended bill of complaint, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed. See, also, 114 Fla. 147, 154 So. 186; 158 So. 287. Appeal from Circuit Court, Columbia County; H. Rowe, judge. COUNSEL Cone & Chapman, of Lake City, for appellants. A. P. Rivers, of Lake City, fo......
-
Wilkins v. Tebbetts, 68-801
...but without so deciding, that equitable defenses may be raised in the answer to a complaint for unlawful detainer. See Harrell v. Martin, 117 Fla. 754, 158 So. 287 (1934), 35 Am.Jur.2d Forcible Entry and Detainer § The question then is whether the affirmative defense alleged by Wilkins in h......
- Bucholtz v. Kuchler