Hart v. Atwood
| Decision Date | 05 December 1928 |
| Citation | 119 So. 116,96 Fla. 667 |
| Parties | HART v. ATWOOD. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by W. F. Atwood against Lee Hart. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals.
Reversed with directions.
Syllabus by the Court
If one of assignments of error grouped in brief fails, they all fail. Where assignments of error are grouped in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, if one assignment fails they all fail.
Lien of judgment against husband does not attach to interest of husband in estate by entireties. The interest of a husband in an estate by entireties has been held to be a vested interest, and, as such, the subject of a lien of a judgment against him, but the courts are not in harmony upon the question, and the better view appears to be that, where under married woman's acts the husband no longer has the right to the possession and control of the property of the wife there is nothing which he can individually dispose of, or incumber, or which can be sold on execution for his debts and therefore there is nothing to which a lien may attach.
Judgment does not constitute lien against property against which it cannot be enforced. No judgment constitutes a lien upon property against which it cannot be enforced.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Sumter County; J. C. B. Koonce, judge.
McCollum & Howell, of Bushnell, for appellant.
Cook & Harris, of St. Petersburg, for appellee.
In this case the appellant has grouped in his brief three assignments of error, as follows:
The assignment of error numbered 3 is without merit, and therefore all assignments of error fail.
In Smithie v. State, 88 Fla. 70, 101 So. 276, it is held:
'Where assignments of error are grouped in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error if one assignment fails they all fail.'
The first assignment of error having been abandoned, and there being no other assignments of error, except those above mentioned, before the court, the decree of the chancellor might be affirmed, but the abstract of title which is before the court and which constituted a part of the evidence before the chancellor shows that the title to the lands involved in the decree is held by Lee Hart and his wife, Mary Hart, and that the same constitutes an estate by entireties.
In the case of Ohio Butterine Co. et al. v. Hargrave et al., 79 Fla. 458, 84 So. 376, this court says:
'The interest of a husband in an estate by entireties has been held to be a vested interest, and as such the subject of a lien of a judgment against him, but the courts are not in harmony upon the question, and the better view appears to be that where under married Woman's Acts the husband no longer has the right to the possession and control of the property of the wife, there is nothing which he can individually dispose of or encumber, or which can be sold on execution for his debts, and therefore there is nothing to which a lien may attach.'
And again in that case ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stanley v. Powers
... ... Logan Moore Lumber Co. v ... Legato, supra; Bailey v. Smith, supra; Ohio Butterine Co. v ... Hargrave, supra; Hart v. Atwood, 96 Fla. 667, 119 ... In the ... latter case we held, quoting with approval from Ohio ... Butterine Co. et al. v. Hargrave, ... ...
- Meredith v. Long
-
State v. Johnson
...effect, previously laid down by this court in the cases of Ohio Butterine Co. v. Hargrave, 79 Fla. 458, 84 So. 376, 378, and Hart v. Atwood, 96 Fla. 667, 119 So. 116, is in point and should be adhered to in denying the alternative writ of mandamus here sought. Counsel for relator has prepar......
-
In re Penrod, Bankruptcy No. 82-01451-BKC-SMW
...attach to property held by tenants by the entireties. Ohio Butterine Co. v. Hargrave, 79 Fla. 458, 84 So. 376 (Fla.1920), Hart v. Atwood, 119 So. 116 (Fla. 1928), State Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security v. Lowery, 333 So.2d 495 (1 D.C.A.1976). See also Matter of Koehle......