Midstate Hauling Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 741,741 |
| Citation | 189 So.2d 826 |
| Parties | MIDSTATE HAULING COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Paul A. Saad and Daniel R. Walbolt, of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, Tampa, for appellant.
Howard J. Clifton, Orlando, for appellee.
Midstate Hauling Company attempts to appeal an interlocutory order at common law dismissing its counterclaim and striking certain of its defenses.
Florida Appellate Rule 4.2, 31 F.S.A., provides for interlocutory appeals in common law proceedings only upon matters affecting venue or jurisdiction as authorized by Article V, Section 5(3), of the Constitution of Florida, F.S.A. The issues of venue or jurisdiction are not raised; therefore, the appeal is clearly not an interlocutory appeal.
We then consider the finality of the order appealed to determine if the matter may be considered as a full appeal under F.A.R. 3.2. It has been held that the dismissal of a complaint, although final in form, which left pending a counterclaim was not appealable. Bumby & Stimpson, Inc. v. Peninsular Utilities Corporation, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 414. The same reasoning would apply to an order dismissing a counterclaim.
Accordingly, the appeal not being interlocutory and the court not having completed its judicial labors in the cause of action between the parties, such is not an appeal from a final judgment and the cause must be dismissed. The matters determined by said order can properly be raised on an appeal from a final judgment.
Dismissed sua sponte.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb
...of the order in question. These cases do hold such an order to be appealable. However, this court held in Midstate Hauling Co. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 826, that such an order is not appealable, relying upon Bumby & Stimpson, Inc. v. Peninsular (sic) Utilities Cor......
-
Insurance Co. of St. Louis v. Lounsbury
...decree. See Bumby & Stimpson, Inc. v. Peninsular Utility Corp., Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 414; Midstate Hauling Company, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 826. The appellant's contention that dismissal of the counterclaim should have been with prejudice is with......
-
S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb
...of the order in question. These cases do hold such an order to be appealable. However, this court held in Midstate Hauling Co. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 826, that such an order is not appealable, relying upon Bumby & Stimpson, Inc. v. Peninsular Utilities Corp., Fl......
-
Taussig v. Ins. Co. of North America
...Fla.App.3d, 1965, 179 So.2d 414.3 S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, Fla.App.4th, 1974, 294 So.2d 712; Midstate Hauling Co. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., Fla.App.4th, 1966, 189 So.2d 826.4 Fla.App.2d 1971, 249 So.2d 726.5 Fla.App.2d 1964, 167 So.2d 332.6 Fla.App.2d 1973, 287 So.2d 739.7 Fla.App.2d......