Longo v. Collins
| Decision Date | 14 October 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. A-404,A-404 |
| Citation | 106 So.2d 1 |
| Parties | Arthur J. LONGO and Mary Frances Longo, his wife, Appellants, v. Dr. C. C. COLLINS, Sr., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Delves & Fischette, Jacksonville, for appellants.
Scott & Cox, and Osborne, Copp, Markham & Ehrlich, Jacksonville, for appellee.
Appellants, as plaintiffs, brought an action at law against the defendant-appellee for breach of contract, negligence and fraud. They now seek to invoke the jurisdiction of this court by interlocutory appeal to review an order of the trial court granting defendant's motion to strike certain portions of their complaint. The propriety of the use of this vehicle to obtain appellate review of an interlocutory order in a law action is our immediate concern.
Rule 4.2, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., provides for the review of interlocutory orders entered in common law actions only when such orders relate to venue or jurisdiction over the person. The jurisdiction of an appellate court cannot be otherwise invoked thereunder in actions at law. 1
F.S. § 59.45, F.S.A., urged by appellants on oral argument, provides little solace. It permits an appeal which has been improvidently taken to be regarded as a petition for certiorari '* * * where the remedy might have been more properly sought by certiorari * * *'. In our recent decision in Pullman Co. v. Fleishel 2 we denied a petition for writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order denying petitioner's motion for summary judgment on the ground that an adequate remedy was available by appeal from and after the entry of final judgment. In the Board of Commissioners of State Institutions v. Tallahassee Bank & Trust Company 3 we refused certiorari to review an interlocutory order at law for similar reasons. There, as in the Pullman Co. case, supra, we held that in the orderly processes for the administration of justice appellate courts should cautiously avoid intrusion and encroachment upon the jurisdiction of trial courts. It is not the function of an appellate court to inject itself into a trial or to direct the trial court in the conduct of a case before it. If a party be aggrieved by any interlocutory order, other than those encompassed by the rules he may seek a review thereof by appropriate assignment only upon appeal from the final judgment, except in those case in which it can be clearly demonstrated that such will not afford a full,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Girten v. Bouvier, 3807
...court in the making of rulings on the pleadings (see also Welsh v. Tropical Roofing Co., Fla.App.1961, 127 So.2d 894; Longo v. Collins, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 1), nor as to the law applicable to the facts; neither will an appellate court review alleged errors in admitting or rejecting evid......
-
Leone v. Town of Palm Beach, 77-2043
...F.A.R. 4.2, we dismiss the appeal. Casper v. Beshany, 351 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA), Opinion issued November 9, 1977; Longo v. Collins, 106 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). Furthermore, we will not treat the interlocutory appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari because "interlocutory orders......
-
Morse v. Hendry Corp.
...within the meaning of Florida Statutes, § 59.2(1), F.S.A. and Florida Appellate Rule 3.2, subd. b, 31 F.S.A.' In Longo v. Collins, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 1, the First District Court of Appeal held that a party aggrieved by interlocutory order other than those encompassed by rules, could se......
-
King v. Jacksonville Coach Co., A-393
...judgment in the cause. WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD, J., and FUSSELL, CARROLL, W., Associate Judge, concur. 1 Longo v. Collins, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 1; Greyhound Corporation v. Kelly, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d ...