Linger v. Balfour

• Decision Date: 28 July 1931
• Citation: Linger v. Balfour, 102 Fla. 591, 136 So. 433 (Fla. 1931)
• Parties: LINGER v. BALFOUR.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

136 So. 433

102 Fla. 591

LINGER v. BALFOUR.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

July 28, 1931

Error to Circuit Court, Polk County; Harry G. Taylor, Judge.

Suit between E. C. Linger and R. C. Balfour. The trial court ruled adversely to him, and E. C. Linger brings error.

Reversed and remanded.

Syllabus by the Court.

SYLLABUS

At common law, the venue of a transitory action could be laid in any county where the court could get jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. The defendant had no 'privilege' of being sued at any particular place. However, as service could not be had on a defendant outside of the county where it was issued, the plaintiff necessarily had to bring his suit in the county where he could serve the defendant.

Section 4234, Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, section 2594, Rev. Gen. St. 1920 provides that all process shall run throughout the state, and therefore process may be issued in one county and served in any other county in the state.

On the common-law theory that a transitory action could be brought in any county so long as the court got jurisdiction of the person, a suit on a transitory action may now be brought in any county and service had in any other county, except for other provisions of our statutes limiting the places where suit may be brought, or giving the defendant the privilege of being sued in a particular county.

There is no statutory privilege provided for the nonresident to be sued on a cause of action arising out of the state at a particular place in this state. Therefore the common-law rule must apply to him, and he may be sued anywhere on a transitory action so long as the court has jurisdiction of his person.

COUNSEL Walker & Willson, of Bartow, for plaintiff in error.

Holland & Bevis and Robert L. Hughes, all of Bartow, for defendant in error.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

At common law, the venue of a transitory action could be laid in any county where the court could get jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. The defendant had no 'privilege' of being sued at any particular place. However, as service could not be had on a defendant outside the county where it was issued, the plaintiff necessarily had to bring his suit in the county where he could serve the defendant.

Our statute, section 4234, Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, provides that all process shall run throughout the state, and therefore process may be issued in one county and served in any other county in the state.

Going on the common-law theory that a transitory action could be brought in any county so long as the court got...