Supreme Court of Florida, 1914

C. W. Zaring & Co. v. Humphreys

Supreme Court of Florida · Decided June 17, 1914 · Cockrell, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield

68 Fla. 6; 65 So. 665

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

All Florida Surety Co. v. Coker (Fla. 1955)
American Soda Fountain Co. v. Plaza Marina, Inc. (Fla. 1931)
First Natl. Bk. of Lake City v. Landress (Fla. 1931)
State Road Department v. Crill (Fla. 1930)
Martin v. Hosmer (Fla. 1929)
In re Estate of McDade (Okla. 1923)
Sabre v. Rutland Railroad (Vt. 1913)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

In an action brought by the corporation against A. Lee Humphreys as an endorser before delivery of certain promissory notes, there was a directed verdict for the defendant, on which a judgment was rendered that “the defendant, A. Lee Humphreys, do have and recover of and from the plaintiff, C. W. Zaring & Company, a Corporation, * * * the sum of five and 40-100 dollars here taxed as his costs.” There was no other judgment for the defendant. A writ of error was taken by the plaintiff corporation.

A judgment for costs alone, though entered for the defendant after a verdict in his favor, will not support a writ of error, since such a judgment does not adjudicate the merits of the cause or dispose of the action, and is consequently not a final judgment. Graves v. J. M. Harris & Bro., 61 Fla. 234, 54 South. Rep. 390; Dexter v. Sea*8board Air R. Co., 52 Fla. 250, 42 South. Rep. 695; Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353, 33 South. Rep. 982; Goldring v. Reid, 60 Fla. 78, 53 South. Rep. 503.

Where a writ of error purports to be taken to a final judgment and no final judgment appears in the transcript of the record proper,.the court should not proceed to con-' sider the errors assigned, but should dismiss the writ of error, whether a motion be made for that purpose or not Flournoy v. Interstate Electric Co., 61 Fla. 214, 55 South. Rep. 983.

Attention is called to the fact that the transcript does not contain an exception to the order overruling the motion for a new trial.

The writ of error is dismissed.

Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Whitfield, J. J., concur.

Hocker, J., absent.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.