Perrin v. Enos
| Decision Date | 11 December 1951 |
| Citation | 56 So.2d 920 |
| Parties | PERRIN v. ENOS. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Hal H. McCaghren, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Andrew F. O'Connell and Joseph A. Peel, Jr., West Palm Beach, for defendant.
The plaintiff-petitioner, Arthur J. Perrin, instituted a common-law action against Dixie B. Enos in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida. She was personally served with process in the cause on the 21st day of August, 1951. On the 18th day of September, 1951, a default and final judgment in the sum of $1,651.53, with costs, was entered in behalf of the plaintiff, Arthur J. Perrin, and against Dixie B. Enos by the Honorable Jos. S. White, Circuit Judge.
The defendant, Dixie B. Enos, on October 16, 1951, through counsel filed in the lower Court her motion to set aside the default and final judgment previously entered against her on the grounds: (1) that she was not mentally or physically able to answer the complaint instituted against her, as shown by an attached affidavit made a part of the motion; (2) that the defendant was not indebted to the plaintiff as alleged in his complaint, nor does she owe the plaintiff the amount of money set out in the final judgment; (3) that she has an adequate and sufficient defense to the plaintiff's alleged cause of action and she offered to proceed immediately to try the issues presented by the pleadings.
The defendant simultaneously tendered a sworn answer to the complaint of the plaintiff and specifically denied that she borrowed the sum of $575 from the plaintiff between July 1, 1950 and June 1, 1951; that she has never borrowed any money at any time from the plaintiff; she denied that she ever purchased goods and wares of the plaintiff in the amount of $990.03; neither had she at any time authorized the plaintiff to expend any money in her behalf; that the only occasion plaintiff expended any sums of money in her behalf was when she requested him to purchase for her some medicines (which he did) and the total amount of the purchase did not exceed the sum of $10; that the plaintiff did some work on her automobile but failed or omitted to render a statement for the work--which amount she stands ready and willing to pay when advised of the correct amount.
In the affidavit of Dixie B. Enos, made a part of the motion to vacate and set aside the default and final judgment previously entered against her, is a recital to the effect that on the 16th day of August, 1951, she was involved in an automobile accident in which one woman was killed; the automobile was wrecked or badly damaged and affiant sustained injuries as a result thereof. Several legal hearings were had in connection with the accident in which the person was killed. The mental worries and turmoil, coupled with injuries sustained in the automobile accident, rendered it difficult for the defendant to concentrate or think about her personal affairs and process in the cause was served upon her some four or five days after the accident at a time that she was mentally unsound and unable to transact any sort of business.
The Court below heard the motion to open the default and set aside the final judgment, and, after argument of counsel on the 18th day of October, 1951, made and entered an order vacating and setting aside the default judgment previously entered on September 18, 1951. The plaintiff below and petitioner presented in this Court his petition for a common law writ of certiorari and prayed here for a judgment quashing the order of the lower Court dated October 18, 1951, and contends that said order is contrary to and a departure from the essential requirements of the law.
Counsel for plaintiff-petitioner contends that the Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Brown
...Mortgage Co. v. United States, 423 F.2d at 77-78; Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Callicotte, 267 F. 799 (8th Cir.1920); Perrin v. Enos, 56 So.2d 920 (Fla.1951); Columbus Hotel Corp. v. Hotel Management Co., 116 Fla. 464, 156 So. 893 (1934), it is clear to us that a construction of the rule w......
-
Duckworth v. Duckworth, 81-2018
...judgment lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Diners Club, Inc. v. Brachvogel, 395 So.2d 1156 (Fla.1981); Perrin v. Enos, 56 So.2d 920 (Fla.1952); Bay Products Corporation v. Winters, 341 So.2d 240 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976). Default judgments are not favored and the trial court's ......
-
Ramagli Realty Co. v. Craver
...Court.'17 For example, see the following cases: Alabama Hotel Co. v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, 1924, 86 Fla. 608, 98 So. 825; Perrin v. Enos, Fla.1952, 56 So. 2d 920. Also see Bronson v. Schulten, 1881, 104 U.S. 410, 26 L.Ed. 797.18 Ibid note 17 and particularly Alabama Hotel Co. v. J. L. Mott......
-
State ex rel. Robert L. Turchin, Inc. v. Herin
...amenable to attack under the principles enunciated in Alabama Hotel Co. v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, 86 Fla. 608, 98 So. 825, Perrin v. Enos, Fla.1952, 56 So.2d 920, and similar cases because we have the view that the extraordinary circumstances shown by this record are such as to require this......