Johnson v. Studstill
| Decision Date | 23 March 1954 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. STUDSTILL. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
R. C. Horne, Madison, and H. B. Edwards, Valdosta, Ga., for appellant.
Meginnis, Thompson & Morrison, Tallahassee, and Davis, Davis & McClure, Madison, and Leonard Pepper, of Turnbull & Pepper, Tallahassee, for appellee.
This cause came on before the trial court to be heard upon a motion by defendant, Howard Studstill, for summary judgment in his favor. Studstill was a co-defendant with Carl Townsend. The motion was granted and the plaintiff-appellant appeals from this judgment of dismissal in favor of defendant, Studstill. In this we find error.
Facts.
The suit is one at law sounding in tort growing out of an automobile accident. Some of the affidavits tend to show that the automobile at one time owned by Studstill had been sold to Townsend while a counter-affidavit and a letter from the Motor Vehicle Commissioner tend to show that the title to a motor vehicle involved in the accident was owned by Studstill. Conclusion.
Common Law Rule 43(c), 30 F.S.A. like Federal Rule 56(c), 28 U.S.C.A., provides that, in event of a motion for a summary judgment 'The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'
Judge Fahy, speaking for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Dewey v. Clark, 1950, 86 U.S.App. D.C. 137, 180 F.2d 766 at page 772, summarizes the points to be considered in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co.
...Fla .1957, 93 So.2d 94; Jones v. Stout-enburgh, Fla.1956, 91 So.2d 299; Manning v. Clark, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 508; and Johnson v. Studstill, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 251.' (Emphasis And Justice Thornal, for the Supreme Court, laid down the basic ground rules in evaluating the evidence upon such mo......
-
Hatcher v. Roberts
... ... E.g., Bared v. Miami Professional Sports Ltd., 353 So.2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Byrd v. Leach, 226 So.2d 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Johnson v. Studstill, 71 So.2d 251 (Fla.1954). Accordingly, we conclude there was no genuine issue of material fact on whether the insurance funds were ... ...
-
Lab v. Hall
...fact, not the determination of the issue of fact. Factual issues are not to be tried or resolved in such proceedings. Johnson v. Studstill, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 251. Some cases by the nature of the complexity of the issues involved and obscurity of the answers are not susceptible of summary a......
-
Humphrys v. Jarrell
...Fla.1957, 93 So.2d 94; Jones v. Stoutenburgh, Fla.1956, 91 So.2d 299; Manning v. Clark, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 508; and Johnson v. Studstill, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 251. The contract specified that the sellers were to furnish an abstract of title to the purchasers upon demand and that the purchaser......