Mendez v. Ortega, 61-47
| Decision Date | 13 November 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 61-47,61-47 |
| Citation | 134 So.2d 247 |
| Parties | Fernando Vidal MENDEZ, Appellant, v. Jose A. ORTEGA, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Herbert Wall, Miami, for appellant.
William B. Roman, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
Appellant, defendant below, was sued by the appellee, plaintiff below, in the Circuit Court, Dade County, Florida, for the sum of $5,000. The complaint alleges that the sum was loaned to the defendant and was to have been repaid on demand; that a demand was made; and that payment of the loan was refused. The defendant answered generally denying the allegations of the complaint. Motion for summary judgment was made by the plaintiff, and after argument of opposing counsel, summary judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $5,000 plus costs; the court also entered a judgment in garnishment for the amount of the aforesaid judgment against defendant's bank, as garnishee. The bank has assigned several errors which are primarily concerned with tender by the debtor and the medium for the payment of the debt. While we find that the assigned errors are without foundation in law we must nevertheless reverse and remand the case to the trial court on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter. This must be done despite the fact that the question of jurisdiction was not raised by the pleadings or otherwise presented. Courts are bound to take notice of the limits of their authority and if want of jurisdiction appears at any stage of the proceedings original or appellate, the court should notice the defect and enter an appropriate order. Bohlinger v. Higginbotham, Fla.1954, 70 So.2d 911; West 132 Feet v. City of Orlando, 80 Fla. 233, 86 So. 197; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 20.
In the case of Canonico v. Devine, Fla.App., 130 So.2d 319, 321, the court stated:
'The jurisdiction of the circuit court in Dade County in actions at law is of those cases where the matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and cost, exceeds the sum of $5,000.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colucci v. Greenfield, 88-903
...396 (Fla.1973); Walton v. Walton, 181 So.2d 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Hadley v. Hadley, 140 So.2d 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); Mendez v. Ortega, 134 So.2d 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961); Pittman v. Roberts, 122 So.2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); Florio v. State, 119 So.2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); In re Coleman'......
-
Greene v. Greene
...stage of the proceedings, original or appellate, the court should notice the defect and enter an appropriate order." Mendez v. Ortega, 134 So.2d 247, 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), citing Bohlinger v. Higginbotham, 70 So.2d 911 (Fla.1954). Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent......
-
Thompson v. Thompson
...of ejectment suit and remanding with instructions to transfer cause to circuit court where jurisdiction lies); Mendez v. Ortega, 134 So. 2d 247, 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961) ("Courts are bound to take notice of the limits of their authority and if want of jurisdiction appears at any stage of the ......
-
Thorney v. Clough, 83-521
...2d DCA 1980). Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, however, is not waivable and may be raised at any time. Mendez v. Ortega, 134 So.2d 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(h)(2). Thus, Ludwig is inapplicable to the case at bar, since that decision refused to extend a jurisdic......