International Shoe Co. v. Hewitt

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation167 So. 7,123 Fla. 587
Decision Date31 March 1936
PartiesINTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. et al. v. HEWITT.

167 So. 7

123 Fla. 587

INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. et al.
v.
HEWITT.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

March 31, 1936


Rehearing Denied April 17, 1936.

Error to Circuit Court, Dade County; Uly O. Thompson, Judge.

Action by T. W. Hewitt, as administrator of the estate of Frieda Hewitt, deceased, against the International Shoe Company, Peters Shoe Company, and Mabel Annabelle Bates, as administratrix of the estate of W. I. Bates. Judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendants bring error.

Affirmed with remittitur.

COUNSEL [167 So. 8]

[123 Fla. 588] Snedigar & Baya, of Miami, for plaintiffs in error.

Patterson, Blackwell & Knight, of Miami, for defendant in error.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is the fourth appearance of this case here. For its former appearances, see Hewitt v. International Shoe Co., 110 Fla. 37, 148 So. 533; Hewitt v. International Shoe Co., 114 Fla. 743, 154 So. 838; Hewitt v. International Shoe Co., 115 Fla. 508, 155 So. 725.

T. W. Hewitt, as administrator of the estate of Frieda Hewitt, deceased, instituted an action for the wrongful death of the latter against the International Shoe Company, Peters Shoe Company, and Mabel Annabelle Bates, as administratrix of the estate of W. I. Bates, deceased. The declaration was filed June 6, 1932. Default judgment was, on July 5, 1932, entered against International Shoe Company and Peters Shoe Company for failure to plead, answer, or demur to the declaration. This default was vacated on July 20, [123 Fla. 589] 1932, and defendants were allowed until the rule day in August, 1932, in which to plead. On July 27, 1932, the defendants made an unsuccessful attempt to remove the cause from the circuit court of Dade county of the United States District Court. See Hewitt v. International Shoe Co., 114 Fla. 743, 154 So. 838. On August 2, 1932, another default was entered against all of the defendants for failure to plead. On August 17, 1932, the defendants made a motion to vacate the default that had been entered against them on August 2, 1932, and tendered certain proposed pleas. This motion was denied by the court on September 27, 1932. The defendants, on December 3, 1932, filed a motion to vacate the order of September 27, 1932, which order had refused to vacate the default of August 2, 1932. This motion was opposed by plaintiff. On January 3, 1933, the court vacated the order of September 27, 1932; granted the motion of August 17, 1932, asking that the default entered August 2, 1932, be declared null and void; and allowed defendants to file instanter the original pleas tendered with the motion of August 17, 1932. For plaintiff's failure to join issue on the pleas so filed, the court, on January 4, 1933, entered judgment non prosequitur in favor of defendants. From that judgment, plaintiff took writ of error. Defendants' motion, made in the Supreme Court, to dismiss the writ of error, was denied. Hewitt v. International Shoe Co., 110 Fla. 37, 148 So. 533. Upon consideration of this writ [167 So. 9] of error on its merits, it was held that the default of August 2, 1932, was validly entered, and that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the court to enter an order, 120 days later and in a subsequent term of court, opening up the default for the purpose of letting in pleas; and that it was error to dismiss the proceeding as on a non prosequitur for failure to join issue on pleas that had no proper standing [123 Fla. 590] before the court. Hewitt v. International Shoe Co., 114 Fla. 743, 154 So. 838. A motion to recall the mandate of the Supreme Court for the purpose of rehearing was denied. Hewitt v. International Shoe Co., 115 Fla. 508, 155 So. 725.

The gist of the action is that Frieda Hewitt was wrongfully killed while riding in an automobile with W. K. Bates, as a gratuitous guest and invitee of the latter. Both Frieda Hewitt and W. I. Bates ware killed in the same accident. Bates was at the time agent of International Shoe Company and Peters Shoe Company.

After the cause had been remanded the trial court, on June 12, 1934, vacated the order of January 3, 1933, vacating the default and allowing defendants to file pleas; reinstated the default entered against defendants on August 2, 1932; and struck the pleas filed by defendants.

On June 25, 1934, the defendants filed their motion to vacate the default judgment entered on August 2, 1932, on the ground that in and by said default judgment, the defendants International Shoe Company and Peters Shoe Company are charged individually, and the defendant Mabel Annabelle Bates, as administratrix of the estate of W. I. Bates, deceased, is charged de bonis propriis, and that said judgment is null and void, and entry thereof constitutes error of law. The court denied this motion on July 5, 1934.

Upon the sole issue of the damages recoverable by the plaintiff, if any, the jury, on July 9, 1934, returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and assessed his damages at $4,500.

Subsequently, Mabel Annabelle Bates, as administratrix of the estate of W. I. Bates, deceased, made a motion for a venire facias de novo on the grounds that the verdict was so defective that a judgment could not be rendered upon it, [123 Fla. 591] and that it appeared from the record that the jury should have found for the defendant.

At the same time, the International Shoe Company and the Peters Shoe Company filed their separate and several motions for a venire facias de novo on the identical grounds set forth above.

In like manner, the defendants, on the same date, filed separate motions for a new trial.

On August 3, 1934, the court separately and severally denied and overruled the motions for new trial and for venire facias de novo.

The final judgment entered in the cause on July 16, 1934, contained the following:

'It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged, that the plaintiff, T. W. Hewitt, as Administrator of the estate of Frieda Hewitt, deceased, do have and recover of and from the defendants International Shoe Company, a corporation Peters Shoe Company, a corporation, and Mabel Annabelle Bates, as Administratrix of the estate of W. I. Bates, the sum of Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($4,500.00) together with the cost of this action, in the sum of $63.35, for which let execution issue.'

From the final judgment, defendants took writ of error. Each defendant presented to the judge, as a guide for making up the bill of exceptions, their several assignments of errors; but all of the defendants jointly filed the complete assignment of errors.

The International Shoe...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Ake v. Birnbaum
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 20, 1945
    ...of Mr. Justice Davis to be directly in point and were not overruled. And in International Shoe Co. et al. v. Hewitt as administrator, 123 Fla. 587, 167 So. 7, it was held that the death of the tort-feasor in the automobile accident in which plaintiff's decedent was killed did not preclude r......
  • THE FRIENDSHIP II, No. 9218.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • July 31, 1940
    ...Trust Co., 1933, 109 Fla. 485, 147 So. 850; Penn v. Pearce, 1935, 121 Fla. 3, 163 So. 288; International Shoe Co. v. Hewitt, 1936, 123 Fla. 587, 167 So. 7; and State v. Parks, 1937, 129 Fla. 50, 175 So. 786. 2 The injury sued for occurred not in the territorial waters of Massachusetts but o......
  • Sinclair Refining Co. v. Butler, No. 34347
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • October 20, 1965
    ...it also appeared that no special claim for such damages was made Page 317 in the complaint). See International Shoe Co. v. Hewitt, 1936, 123 Fla. 587, 167 So. We note that the Wrongful Death Act, Sec. 768.01 et seq., Fla.Stat., F.S.A., creates in the named beneficiaries (the order of succes......
  • Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. of Tex. v. Webb, MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • April 13, 1950
    ...80 S.W. 1038; International & G. N. R. Co. v. Brandon, 37 Tex.Civ.App. 371, 84 S.W. 272, (er. ref.); International Shoe Co. v. Hewitt, 123 Fla. 587, 167 So. 7; Townsend v. Briggs, 99 Cal. 481, 34 P. 116; City of Friend v. Ingersoll, 39 Neb. 717, 58 N.W. 281; Paine v. Gamble Stores, 202 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • Ake v. Birnbaum
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 20, 1945
    ...of Mr. Justice Davis to be directly in point and were not overruled. And in International Shoe Co. et al. v. Hewitt as administrator, 123 Fla. 587, 167 So. 7, it was held that the death of the tort-feasor in the automobile accident in which plaintiff's decedent was killed did not preclude r......
  • THE FRIENDSHIP II, No. 9218.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • July 31, 1940
    ...Trust Co., 1933, 109 Fla. 485, 147 So. 850; Penn v. Pearce, 1935, 121 Fla. 3, 163 So. 288; International Shoe Co. v. Hewitt, 1936, 123 Fla. 587, 167 So. 7; and State v. Parks, 1937, 129 Fla. 50, 175 So. 786. 2 The injury sued for occurred not in the territorial waters of Massachusetts but o......
  • Sinclair Refining Co. v. Butler, No. 34347
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • October 20, 1965
    ...it also appeared that no special claim for such damages was made Page 317 in the complaint). See International Shoe Co. v. Hewitt, 1936, 123 Fla. 587, 167 So. We note that the Wrongful Death Act, Sec. 768.01 et seq., Fla.Stat., F.S.A., creates in the named beneficiaries (the order of succes......
  • Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. of Tex. v. Webb, MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • April 13, 1950
    ...80 S.W. 1038; International & G. N. R. Co. v. Brandon, 37 Tex.Civ.App. 371, 84 S.W. 272, (er. ref.); International Shoe Co. v. Hewitt, 123 Fla. 587, 167 So. 7; Townsend v. Briggs, 99 Cal. 481, 34 P. 116; City of Friend v. Ingersoll, 39 Neb. 717, 58 N.W. 281; Paine v. Gamble Stores, 202 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT