Haynes v. Bramlett

• Decision Date: 07 July 1903
• Parties: HAYNES v. BRAMLETT.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

35 So. 3

46 Fla. 348

HAYNES v. BRAMLETT.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

July 7, 1903

Error to Circuit Court, Pasco County; Joseph B. Wall, Judge.

Action by William B. Haynes against T. W. Bramlett. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Dismissed.

See 31 So. 253.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. A judgment for costs alone, 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 Thos. E. Bugg, for plaintiff in error.

Hugh C. Macfarlane, Thomas M. Shackleford, and Jas. F. Glen, for defendant in error.

OPINION

CARTER, J.

This was an action to recover damages for a trespass to real estate, instituted by plaintiff in error against defendant in error in the circuit court of Pasco county in April, 1899. It appears from the record that on April 13, 1900, a trial was had, and that the jury rendered a verdict finding the defendant not guilty. Thereupon the following judgment was entered: 'It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the defendant, T. W. Bramlett, do have and recover from the plaintiff, W. B. Haynes, the sum of forty-one and 71/100 dollars as for the cost of this suit by the said defendant expended.' This is the only entry purporting to be a final judgment.

In Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. ----, 33 So. 982, it was held that a judgment for costs alone, 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.

The judgment here entered is not, under the authority of that case, such a final judgment as will support the writ of error here taken, and the writ must therefore be dismissed, at the cost of plaintiff in error.