Kauffman v. King
| Decision Date | 27 July 1956 |
| Citation | 89 So.2d 24 |
| Parties | Gloria G. KAUFFMAN, Petitioner, v. Annabel KING, a single woman, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Fowler, White, Gillen, Yancey & Humkey and Henry Burnett, Miami, for petitioner.
Nichols, Gaither, Green, Frates & Beckham, Miami, for respondent.
We here consider, on certiorari, an order of the Circuit Court in and for Dade County denying petitioner's motion to dismiss the respondent's suit on the ground of improper venue.
The respondent King, who was plaintiff below, filed a suit at law in the Circuit Court of Dade County against six defendants to recover on an alleged joint and several liability for injuries suffered by her in an automobile accident that occurred in Palm Beach County. Four of the defendants are residents of Palm Beach County, and the other two are individuals residing in another state. The issue here, as it was in the court below, is whether in these circumstances the defendant residents of Palm Beach County are entitled to claim the venue privilege granted by Section 46.01, Fla.Stat.1955, F.S.A., of being sued in the county 'where the defendant resides, or where the cause of action accrued * * *.'
The trial judge's action in denying the petitioner, who was one of the resident defendants, the right to be sued in Palm Beach County was apparently based on the following provision of Section 46.01: 'This section shall not apply to suits against non-residents.' In defense of the trial judge's order, counsel for the plaintiff states that Section 46.01, being in derogation of the plaintiff's rights at common law, should be strictly construed against the claim of privilege; and he argues, syllogistically, that (1) the statute provides that it 'shall not apply to suits against non-residents'; (2) the instant suit is one against non-residents (3) therefore, the statute does not apply to the instant suit. But the conclusion is correct only if we assume that, by the quoted provision, the Legislature intended the statute to be inapplicable in any suit in which a non-resident is a party defendant, regardless of whether other resident defendants are joined in the action. This is an unwarranted assumption, in our opinion.
In State ex rel. Bernhart v. Barrs, 1943, 152 Fla. 631, 12 So.2d 576, 577, in a suit filed solely against non-resident individual defendants, this court held that the quoted provision barred the defendants from claiming a privilege of being sued in the county where the cause of action accrued, and said that the provision in question 'has the effect of removing non residents from [the statute's] scope.' We think this fairly states the effect of the statute and, moreover, that the Legislature intended to do no more than that--that is, to make inapplicable to non-resident individual defendants the privilege thereby granted. We can conceive of no reason why the Legislature would intend to withhold from resident defendants the privilege, merely becuase a non-resident defendant happened to be joined as a party defendant. The interpretation contended for by plaintiff is not required by the language of the provision in question; and since it is, in our opinion, not only illogical but unreasonable, we decline to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thoman v. Ashley, 4548
...orders at law in appropriate cases as where it is asserted that the trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction. E. g. Kauffman v. King, Fla.App.,1956, 89 So.2d 24; cf. Enfinger v. Baxley, Fla .1957, 96 So.2d 538. We recently granted the writ to review an interlocutory order at law wher......
-
Fountainbleau, LLC v. Hire US, Inc.
...becomes meaningless. See Gundel, 264 So. 3d at 311 (quoting Keck v. Eminisor, 104 So. 3d 359, 365-66 (Fla. 2012) ); cf. Kauffman v. King, 89 So. 2d 24, 26 (Fla. 1956) (granting the petition for writ of certiorari and finding "that it is palpably unjust to require [petitioner] to incur the e......
-
Girten v. Bouvier, 3807
...court exercise its discretionary power to issue the writ. See Wolf v. Industrial Supply Corp., Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 30; Kauffman v. King, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 24; Taylor v. Board of Public Instruction of Duval County, Fla.App.1961, 131 So.2d 504. Where the remedy of appeal exists, this right or......
-
State ex rel. Christian v. Rudd, W--313
...court exercise its discretionary power to issue the writ. See Wolf v. Industrial Supply Corp., Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 30; Kauffman v. King, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 24; Taylor v. Board of Public Instruction of Duval County, Fla.App.1961, 131 So.2d 504. * * *' (155 So.2d at page In another opinion of ......
-
Business litigation
...[Fla. Stat. §47.011.] Venue against a non-resident individual defendant lies in any county in Florida. [ See , e. g ., Kauffman v. King , 89 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1956).] With respect to the accrual of a cause of action venue prong, the following applies: • Venue for a contract claim occurs where......