Rhea v. Hackney, (1934)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 14
Judges: DAVIS, C. J. —
Attorneys: E. H. Wilkerson and E. H. Martin, for Plaintiff in Error;
F. R. Hocker, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Oct. 22, 1934
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: The principal question presented in this case is the authority of a court of law, independent of court rule or statute, and in the exercise of its inherent judicial power, to strike as sham pleas interposed by a defendant which are shown to be false and filed merely for delay, though apparently good on their face and verified in legal form, and thereupon to give plaintiff a final judgment against the defendant as upon default for want of any defense whatsoever. The court below ruled in the affir
Summary: The principal question presented in this case is the authority of a court of law, independent of court rule or statute, and in the exercise of its inherent judicial power, to strike as sham pleas interposed by a defendant which are shown to be false and filed merely for delay, though apparently good on their face and verified in legal form, and thereupon to give plaintiff a final judgment against the defendant as upon default for want of any defense whatsoever. The court below ruled in the affirm..
More
It being shown that the pleas were sham pleas and knowingly made by defendant for delay thus suing the court as a means or instrument to accomplish a fraudulent design no notice was required on the motion to strike the pleas. Upon an examination of the entire record it does not appear that the order has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Sec. 4499 C. G. L.
The judgment should be affirmed.
Source: CourtListener
