Whiteside v. Dinkins
| Decision Date | 04 August 1923 |
| Citation | 97 So. 517,86 Fla. 261 |
| Parties | WHITESIDE v. DINKINS. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Sept. 10, 1923.
Error to Circuit Court, Lee County; M. F. Horne, Judge.
Suit by Martha Hannah Whiteside, sole devisee and legatee under the last will and testament of E. Whiteside, deceased, against J J. Dinkins. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
Reversed.
See also, 92 So. 688.
West j., dissenting.
Syllabus by the Court
On plea of payment in suit on judgment, testimony of transaction occurring prior to judgment inadmissible. On a plea of payment, in a suit on a judgment, testimony about transactions that occurred prior to the judgment is not admissible.
Negotiations or transactions relative to settlement or attempted settlement of claim prior to judgment inadmissible in suit thereon. Negotiations or transactions relating to a settlement or attempted settlement of a claim, had prior to the judgment, are not admissible in a suit on the judgment.
Walter O. Sheppard, of Ft. Myers, for plaintiff in error.
R. A. Henderson, Jr., and Fred H. Mellor, both of Ft. Myers, for defendant in error.
This suit is brought by Martha Hannah Whiteside to recover on a judgment obtained nearly 20 years before by her father, E. Whiteside, deceased, which she alleges she is the owner of.
The case went to trial on a single plea, that defendant before the bringing of this suit had 'fully paid and satisfied the judgment sued upon.' There was verdict and judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff took writ of error.
It appears from the record that the defendant was served with a summons in a suit brought by E. Whiteside on August 8, 1901, which resulted in the judgment sued on, and that there were some negotiations between Whiteside and Dinkins about a settlement of the claim prior to the entry of the judgment.
There was introduced in evidence a sworn bill in chancery brought by Dinkins to have this judgment declared a nullity, and to be discharged from liability thereunder, in which he alleges he did not know of the entry and existence of the judgment until May, 1915, nearly 14 years after its rendition.
All the testimony of the defendant with regard to the alleged settlement or payment of the judgment relates to transactions and negotiations, prior to the judgment, for a settlement of the claim which resulted in the judgment. This was objected to by the plaintiff below, who also moved to strike.
There is some testimony to the effect that a horse was delivered to E. Whiteside by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salinas v. Ramsey
...in Florida); Van Deren v. Lory, 87 Fla. 422, 100 So. 794 (1924) (action to enforce an Indiana judgment in Florida); Whiteside v. Dinkins, 86 Fla. 261, 97 So. 517 (1923) (action by the devisee of a judgment to obtain a judgment for the same amount).3 We recognize that our reasoning in Young ......
-
B & L Motors, Inc. v. Bignotti
...by the judgment. Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(d), payment is an affirmative defense. See also Whiteside v. Dinkins, 86 Fla. 261, 97 So. 517 (1923), holding that a satisfaction of a judgment is a defense to a suit on the judgment. Accordingly, the execution and recording of th......
-
Adams v. Adams
...of the suit by the trial court, holding that the appellant was entitled to bring an action on the judgment. Accord Whiteside v. Dinkins, 86 Fla. 261, 97 So. 517 (1923). As is noted in 47 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 945 (1995), the main purpose of an action on a judgment is to obtain a new judgmen......
-
Crane v. Nuta
... ... upon which a new and independent action may be based ... In the case of ... Whiteside, Sole Devisee, etc., v. Dinkins, 86 Fla ... 261, 97 So. 517, this court had under consideration a case ... which is in every respect analogous to ... ...
-
Federal judgments in Florida - still good after five years.
...(permitting a new action to recover on a prior judgment; Justice Buford, who joined in Lott, authored the opinion); Whiteside v. Dinkins, 97 So. 517 (Fla. 1923) (permitting a new action to recover on a prior judgment; Justice Terrell joined in the decision). (33) 14 So. 2d at 669. (34) BLAC......