Linger v. Balfour
| Decision Date | 28 July 1931 |
| Citation | 102 Fla. 591,136 So. 433 |
| Parties | LINGER v. BALFOUR. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
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.
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.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brashier v. J. C. O'Connor & Sons
... ... 176; Silverstone v. London ... Assurance Corp., 142 N.W. 776, 176 Mich. 525; Atkins ... v. Borstler, 9 N.Y. 850, 46 Mich. 552; Linger v ... Balfour, 101 Fla. 1529, 136 So. 433 ... [181 ... Miss. 874] Defendants who were not inhabitants of state would ... not have ... ...
-
Board of Public Instruction for Lafayette County v. First Nat. Bank
...and was considered local where the transaction could only have happened or been consummated in the place where it was made. Linger v. Balfour (Fla.) 136 So. 433; C.J. pp. 931-933; 27 R. C. L. 786, 787. Generally, transactions arising out of contract are classed as transitory, and the common......
-
Krivitsky v. Nye
... ... in Hillsborough County, Florida. See Section 648.07, ... Fla.Stats. 1941, F.S.A.; Linger v. Balfour, 102 Fla ... 591, 136 So. 433; Patten v. Mokher, 134 Fla. 433, ... 184 So. 29 ... The order or decree ... appealed from is ... ...
-
Abbate v. Provident Nat. Bank, 93-1281
...state. Sec. 48.011, Fla.Stat. Thus, process can be issued in one county and served in any other county in the state. Linger v. Balfour, 102 Fla. 591, 136 So. 433 (1931). 1 The defendant concedes the sheriff of Palm Beach County or his designee or even an elisor could have served him in Palm......