Wider v. Carraway, 417
Decision Date | 26 February 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 417,417 |
Citation | 101 So.2d 13 |
Parties | Stuart P. WIDER, Appellant, v. H. W. CARRAWAY and Martin G. Wider, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Raymond C. Smith, Lakeland, for appellant.
A. R. Carver; Carver & Langston, Lakeland, for appellees.
The court below, on petition of appellees for final judgment, entered what is designated as a 'summary final judgment' on the 24th day of October, 1957; the judgment was in fact a final judgment on the merits, and the petitioner filed an appeal herein from that order. The case came on to be heard on the appellees' motion to affirm judgment and quash appeal.
The records show that on the 14th day of March, 1956, the appellees filed a request for admission of facts, to which the appellant filed, on April 12, 1956, a certain document which, after setting forth why he cannot truthfully answer certain questions in the request, then proceeds to answer certain other questions, and, as attorney for the appellant, signs the document, but not under oath.
The court below, in entering final judgment, held that the appellant had failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 1.30, 30 F.S.A., and also, held that having failed to comply with the rule, the admissions that were requested were, thus, answered.
There is one question which must be considered in this court and that is, whether, in a hearing before the court below, the appellees waived the question of the document being executed by the attorney and without oath. The court below held that the question, as to the request, was thus admitted and, being thus admitted, was sufficient to form the basis for the final judgment. At a prior time the court below held that the appellant had made out a prima facie case but, in so doing, no question was raised relevant to the request for admissions and the appellant's response thereto. So, in final essence, the question before us is whether or not the appellees, in not raising this question, in the final instance, did not thereby waive it.
There is no stipulation of record allowing an attorney to sign the answer to the request for admissions nor, apparently, was anything ever said or done about the answer until the very decision, from which appeal is being taken and so, it has not been made to appear that the appellees waived it.
In regard to the effect of this situation, in a case from the Fifth Circuit in Woods v. Robb, 171 F.2d 539, 541, the court has this to say:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McKean v. Kloeppel Hotels, Inc.
...so much of it as true and deny only the remainder.' Federal decisions construing the rule are highly persuasive. Wider v. Carraway, 101 So.2d 13 (Fla.App.2d 1958). In Southern Ry. Co. v. Crosby, 201 F.2d 878, 36 A.L.R.2d 1186 (1953), the United States Court of Appeal, 4th Circuit, consideri......
-
Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gerringer, 88-1738
...696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965) (facts questioned through request for admissions deemed admitted for failure to answer); Wider v. Carraway, 101 So.2d 13, 14-15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958) (requests deemed admitted for failure to properly ...
-
AMENDMENTS TO FLA. RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
... ... determining the application of this rule. Wider v. Carraway, 101 So.2d 13 (D.C.A.2d ... As a matter of practice, the date for serving answers to ... ...
-
Ohio Realty Inv. Co. v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. of Richmond, Va., 70--468
...counterpart, Rule 33, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Carson v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 743; Wider v. Carraway, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 13. In Holland v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., U.S.D.C., D.C., 28 F.R.D. 595 (1961) it was held that Rule 33 permitted i......