Sydney v. Auburndale Const. Corp.
Decision Date | 05 December 1928 |
Citation | 96 Fla. 688,119 So. 128 |
Parties | SYDNEY v. AUBURNDALE CONST. CORPORATION et al. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by Mary E. Sydney against the Auburndale Construction Corporation and others. From an order granting defendant's motion to vacate a decree pro confesso and set aside the final decree, complainant appeals.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Question of setting aside decree pro confesso is within discretion of chancellor (Equity Rule 45). In its inception the question of setting aside a decree pro confesso is addressed to the sound discretion of the chancellor, to be exercised according to the circumstances of each particular case.
Legislature cannot prescribe rules regulating conduct of court's business or matters within inherent power of court to regulate. The Legislature has no power to prescribe rules regulating the conduct of the court's business or matters within the inherent power of the court to regulate.
Law relating to procedure in case bill is taken pro confesso held not to infringe on court rule (Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, § 4945; Equity Rule 45). Section 4945, Compiled General Laws of Florida, does not infringe on Equity Rule 45, but deals with a question subject to legislative regulation.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Polk County; H. F Atkinson, judge.
Burdine, Terry & Fleming and L. L. Robinson, all of Miami, for appellant.
Olen R Clements, of Miami, for appellees.
Appellant in the court below brought suit against appellees to foreclose a mortgage. There was a decree pro confesso and final decree entered against appellees, the final decree bearing date of December 1, 1927. On December 19, 1927 appellees filed their motion to vacate the decree pro confesso and set aside the final decree, and for leave to file their answer to the bill of complaint. On January 24, 1928, the chancellor made his order granting the said motion. Appeal was taken from that order. In connection with the foregoing, other proceedings and steps in the cause were taken; but they are immaterial to a disposition of the questions raised here.
Was the chancellor within his discretion in vacating the decree pro confesso and setting aside the final decree?
Appellant contends that the decree of the chancellor, vacating the decree pro confesso and setting aside the final decree, not having been made within 20 days from the date of the final decree, was in violation of Equity Rule 45, the pertinent part of which is as follows:
As against the contention of appellant, appellees contend that the action of the chancellor was controlled by section 4945, Compiled General Laws of Florida 1927 (section 3158, Revised General Statutes of Florida), the pertinent part of which is as follows:
In fine, the appellant contends that by the terms of Equity Rule 45 the motion to vacate the decree pro confesso and set aside the final decree must be made and disposed of by the chancellor within 20 days, unless additional time is allowed while appellees contend that by the terms of section 4945, Compiled General Laws of Florida, the motion to vacate the decree pro confesso and set aside the final decree must be made and filed within 20 days, but that it may be disposed of within a reasonable time before or after the lapse of the 20 days in the discretion...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Petition of Florida State Bar Ass'n for Promulgation of New Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
... ... Ross v ... Call, 39 Fla. 504, 22 So. 748; Sydney v. Auburndale ... Construction Corp., 96 Fla. 688, 119 So. 128; Ruff ... Section ... 1, art. 5, Const.Fla. But the authority to make laws is in ... the Legislature of the ... ...
- Myers v. Van Buskirk
-
Florida Medical Center, Inc. v. Von Stetina By and Through Von Stetina
...the conduct of the Court's business or other matters within the inherent power of the Court to regulate". SYDNEY v. AUBURNDALE CONSTRUCTION CORP., 96 Fla. 688, 119 So. 128, 129 (1928). Since both of these propositions are settled, it is clear that § 768.54 1 is unconstitutional--because it ......
-
Hanzelik v. Grottoli and Hudon Inv. of America, Inc.
...held that a statute which purports to create or modify a procedural rule of court is constitutionally infirm. Sydney v. Auburndale Constr. Corp., 96 Fla. 688, 119 So. 128 (1928); Johnson v. State, 308 So.2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), aff'd., 346 So.2d 66 (Fla.1977); Markert v. Johnston, 367 S......
-
Quasi-judicial proceedings and constitutional rights: what is happening to separation of powers?
...that all houses are worth the same amount per square foot for purposes of full compensation. (32) See Sydney v. Auburndale Construction, 119 So. 128, 129 (Fla. 1928) ("The Legislature has no power to prescribe rules regulating the conduct of the court's business or other matters within the ......