Milligan v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 20 June 1958 |
| Citation | 104 So.2d 35 |
| Parties | Herman D. MILLIGAN, Appellant, v. Irene Wells WILSON, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Ernest A. Townsend and Oxford & Oxford, Lakeland, for appellant.
Tittsworth & Tittsworth, Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant Milligan, who was plaintiff below, seeks reversal of an order of the trial judge dismissing his complaint in an action based on a foreign judgment.
We must dispose of the matter on jurisdictional grounds without reaching the merits.
Milligan recovered a judgment against appellee Irene Wells Wilson and another in the State of Virginia. In the instant case he proceeded in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida by a complaint attaching authenticated copies of the Virginia judgment and proceedings. Appellee Wilson answered and also moved to dismiss the complaint contending that the Virginia record reflected jurisdictional defects in the Virginia judgment. On July 10, 1957 the trial judge sustained the motion and entered an order dismissing the complaint. By direct appeal to this court, appellant seeks reversal of that order.
It is unnecessary to delineate the contentions of the parties on the merits of the appeal for the reason that we are immediately challenged by a jurisdictional problem which precludes our consideration thereof.
It should be noted that the order under assault was entered subsequent to July 1, 1957, when Amended Article V of the Florida Constitution became effective. By that amendment to our organic law the appellate jurisdiction of this court was circumscribed by certain carefully defined limitations. On the other hand, within the orbit of the provisions of Amended Article V, supra, the only imaginable jurisdictional basis upon which appellant seeks to rely is that portion of Article V, Section 4(b), Florida Constitution, F.S.A., which reads in part as follows:
'Appeals from trial courts may be taken directly to the supreme court, as a matter of right, only from judgments * * * construing a controlling provision of the Florida or federal constitution * * *.'
'Construing' is the key word in the quoted language of the Constitution. Our examination of the order of dismissal entered by the trial judge here fails to reveal any judicial construction or interpretation of the Federal Constitution. No provision of the Florida Constitution was even remotely involved. Appellant does contend that the judge failed to extend full faith and credit to the Virginia judgment. However, both parties agree that under Article IV of the Constitution of the United States full faith and credit is accorded only to valid judgments of the courts of sister states. Consequently by the order under assault the trial judge did not undertake to construe a controlling provision of our Federal Constitution. He merely held that admitting the rule to be as both parties contend, nonetheless the judgment of the Virginia court, in his view at least, was fatally defective on jurisdictional grounds and consequently was unenforceable in Florida. Therefore, reasoned the trial judge, the full faith and credit requirements of the Federal Constitution were not a barrier to his order of dismissal.
We interpolate that we obviously do not here pass upon the correctness of the holding of the trial judge. We are here considering only the limits of our jurisdiction.
The line of cleavage between the parties does not hinge on a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schermerhorn v. Local 1625 of Retail Clerks Intern. Ass'n, AFL-CIO, AFL-CIO
...the chancellor's order quoted above clearly and unquestionably construes Section 12, Declaration of Rights. Unlike in Milligan v. Wilson, Fla., 104 So.2d 35, and Carmazi v. Board of County Commissioners, Fla., 104 So.2d 727, the issues in the instant case required the trial court to rule di......
-
Evans v. Carroll
...jurisdiction is not foisted upon us.' State ex rel. Audrain County v. City of mexico, 355 Mo. 612, 197 S.W.2d 301. See, also, Milligan v. Wilson, Fla., 104 So.2d 35. An examination of the record in the instant case for this purpose fully sustains the apparent conclusion of the trial court t......
-
Dresner v. City of Tallahassee
...state or federal constitution is directly appealable to the Florida Supreme Court. Art. V, Sec. 4(2), Florida Constitution; Milligan v. Wilson (Fla.), 104 So.2d 35. Assuming, for purposes of the instant case, that the Circuit Court would be classified generically as a 'trial court' exercisi......
-
State v. Lyons
...1 Armstrong v. City of Tampa, Fla.1958, 106 So.2d 407; Carmazi v. Board of County Commissioners, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 727; Milligan v. Wilson, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 35; Rojas v. State, Fla.1973, 288 So.2d 234, 236; Ogle v. Pepin, Fla.1973, 273 So.2d 391.2 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(......