Lucy v. Deas
| Decision Date | 09 May 1910 |
| Citation | 52 So. 515,59 Fla. 552 |
| Parties | LUCY v. DEAS et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; J. B. Wall, Judge.
Bill by Frank C. B. Lucy against A. W. Deas and others. Decree for defendants, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
A void judgment is a nullity, and may be attacked collaterally; but a judgment is not void if the court as organized legally existed and had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties.
Where by fraud practiced in litigation the court apparently had jurisdiction of the cause and of the parties, but in reality the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter, or had no jurisdiction of the adverse party, because he was not duly served with notice or otherwise, or did not have a hearing or an opportunity to be heard, on account of fraud practiced on him, the trial is not one of adversary rights in a proper subject-matter, and the judgment is null and void in toto.
Where the court is legally organized, and has jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and the adversary parties are given an opportunity to be heard by the actual or constructive service on them of notice of the litigation as required by law, any errors or irregularities, or even wrongdoing, in the proceedings, short of an illegal deprivation of an opportunity to be heard, will not render the judgment void.
Property in this state is subject to the laws thereof, and judgments rendered by the coarts in proceedings in rem upon such property are not null and void, because the owner was out of the state and had no personal notice of the suit, where the property is within the jurisdiction of the court and the constructive notice required by law was given.
The giving of incompetent or false testimony at the hearing, and the injustice of the claim asserted against the property, do not render the judgment null and void.
COUNSEL M. G. Gibbons and Herbert S. Phillips, for appellant.
Wall & McKay, for appellees.
The bill of complaint alleges that Frank C. B. Lucy, the complainant, is a citizen of Hillsborough county, Fla.; that since January 10, 1900, he has been the owner of certain described land in said county; that in January, 1904, the complainant, being desirous of leaving the state for a time placed the lands in the hands of two different real estate agents for the purpose of selling the same; that he gave to his friend W. M. Chapman a power of attorney to make deeds of conveyance of the land, should a sale be made by either of the real estate agents during the temporary absence of the complainant from the state, the net proceeds of the sale to be deposited; that he left with said Chapman his address, and from time to time exchanged letters with him till the death of Chapman; that he had no knowledge of the death of Chapman till his arrival in Tampa in October, 1908 that A. W. Deas is the administrator of the estate of said W. M. Chapman; that said Deas and Weir, one of the real estate agents combining and confederating together for the purpose of defrauding the complainant, caused attachment proceedings against complainant to be instituted by said Deas, as administrator, and levied upon said land of complainant, for an alleged indebtedness of the complainant to the said W. M. Chapman; that the affidavit in attachment was made by an attorney who had no knowledge of indebtedness of complainant to Chapman, deceased, unless it was received from said Weir, and, if so received, it was false; that service was obtained on complainant by publication, and that he had no personal knowledge of said suit until after his arrival in Tampa in October, 1908; that judgment was rendered against complainant upon the testimony of said Weir, and that the same was false and untrue, in that the said Weir could not and did not have any knowledge of any indebtedness of complainant to Chapman, deceased, and that such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malone v. Meres
...control of the courts to disturb. Einstein v. Davidson, 35 Fla. 342, 17 So. 563; Torrey v. Bruner, 60 Fla. 365, 53 So. 337; Lucy v. Deas, 59 Fla. 552, 52 So. 515. If court has acquired jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties, the judgment or decree entered is binding, even tho......
-
Sawyer v. Gustason
... ... valid and supported by the record recitals, were in reality ... void, and subject to annulment on proper attack. Lucy v ... Deas, 59 Fla. 552, 52 So. 515; Rice v ... Cummings, 51 Fla. 535, 40 So. 889; Johnson v ... McKinnon, 54 Fla. 221, 45 So. 23, 13 L. R. A ... ...
-
Bradburn v. McIntosh
...28 S.Ct. 585, 52 L.Ed. 904, 14 Ann.Cas. 1164; Kingsbury v. Buckner, 134 U.S. 650, 680, 10 S.Ct. 638, 33 L.Ed. 1047. 15 Lucy v. Deas, 59 Fla. 552, 52 So. 515, 516; Mahoney v. State Ins. Co., 133 Iowa 570. 110 N.W. 1041, 1042, 1043, 9 L.R.A.,N.S., 490; Freeman on Judgments, 5th Ed., Vol. 1, §......
-
Chisholm v. House
...Bank & Trust Co., 10 Cir., 157 F.2d 852, 854. 10 Parker v. Richard, 250 U.S. 235, 237, 238, 39 S.Ct. 442, 63 L.Ed. 954. 11 Lucy v. Deas, 59 Fla. 552, 52 So. 515, 516; Mahoney v. State Ins. Co., 133 Iowa 570, 110 N.W. 1041, 1042, 1043, 9 L.R.A.,N.S., 490; Bradburn v. McIntosh, 10 Cir., 159 F......