Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Barrett
Decision Date | 27 April 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 64-834,64-834 |
Citation | 174 So.2d 417 |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Parties | PENNSYLVANIA THRESHERMEN & FARMERS' MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Linda BARRETT, a minor, by her natural mother and next friend, Louise Dawson, and Louise Dawson, individually, and Fred E. Traister, Appellees. |
John G. Poole, Jr. and James J. Kenny, Miami, for appellant.
Gilbert A. Frank, Miami Beach, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and TILLMAN PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.
The appellant has brought for review a summary final judgment in a garnishment proceeding. The appellees, Linda Barrett and Louise Dawson, recovered a final judgment in a personal injury action and then garnished the defendant's insurance carrier.
It is apparent from the record that the basis for the summary judgment in the garnishment proceeding was the trial judge's conclusion that the law of the case before him had been fully established by a decision in another trial court involving the same parties. This conclusion was not warranted because the decision relied upon had been appealed and superseded at the time of the summary final judgment. A supersedeas has the effect to suspend all further proceedings in relation to a judgment superseded, but it does not, like a reversal, annul it. The supersedeas, being preventive in nature, does not set aside what the trial court has adjudicated, but stays further proceeding in relation to the judgment until the appellate court acts thereon. Bacon v. Green, 1894, 36 Fla. 313, 18 So. 866. The act of the trial judge in the court below involved a proceeding in relation to the judgment superseded and should have been stayed until the disposition of the appeal had become final. The wisdom of the rule cited is borne out by the fact that the judgment relied upon has since been reversed by the Court of Appeal, Second District. See Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. Traister, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 153 [opinion filed 2/19/65].
In order to reach the question discussed above, it was necessary for us to consider appellant's contention that it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because the traverse of its answer was filed more than ten days after the filing of the answer. Rule 2.12(a) Fla.R.Civ.P., 31 F.S.A.
In the present instance the writ of garnishment made no reference to insurance. Furthermore, the sworn answer of the garnishee simply denied that it was indebted to the defendant. The garnishee did not reveal its full defense which was its contention that it was not liable upon the contract of insurance issued to the defendant in the principal action (even though it had defended the principal action for its alleged insured). This answer while sufficient in form was not complete. See Jax Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. South Florida Farms Co., 1926, 91 Fla. 593, 109 So. 212, 48 A.L.R. 957. The garnishor...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Finst Development, Inc. v. Bemaor
...e.g., Bacon v. Green, 36 Fla. 313, 18 So. 866 (1894), by writ of garnishment, see, e.g., Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Barrett, 174 So.2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), 2 or by discovery in aid of execution, see, e.g., Fehlhaber v. Fehlhaber, 664 F.2d 260 (11......
-
Fehlhaber v. Fehlhaber
...the effect to suspend all further proceedings in relation to a judgment superseded...." Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Barrett, 174 So.2d 417, 418 (Fla.App.1965). See Bacon v. Green, 36 Fla. 313, 18 So. 866 (1894). While we have found no Florida case sp......
-
Florida Steel Corp. v. A. G. Spanos Enterprises, Inc.
...owing under the judgment is paid to the defendant. Our conclusion is in harmony with the opinion in Pennsylvania Thresh. & F. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Barrett, Fla.App.3d, 1965, 174 So.2d 417, involving an attempt to collect upon a superseded judgment pending appeal by way of garnishment in wh......
-
F. W. Dodge Co. Division of McGraw-Hill, Inc. v. Southern Indus. Sav. Bank, 67--212
...with respect to remedying defaults in actions generally, is applicable to garnishment proceedings. Pennsylvania Thresh. & F. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Barrett, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 417. The established rule in Florida is that in case of reasonable doubt, where there has been no trial upon th......