Chapman v. Reddick
Citations
- 41 Fla. 120
Syllabus
<p>1. The Legislature has power to authorize the Circuit Courts to issue writs to be executed in any part of the State, where such writs merely enable the court to fully exercise its rightful constitutional jurisdiction by giving notice to the party defendant, or by securing his property or a lien thereon as an auxiliary, incidental or conservatory measure in suits wherein such courts have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action granted by the constitution, and the exercise of such power does not confer extra-territorial jurisdiction upon the Circuit Courts in violation of the Constitution.</p> <p>2. The provisions of Sections 998 and 1014, Revised Statutes, authorizing summons ad respondendum to issue • from a Circuit Court to be served upon defendants in another county or circuit in actions rightfully instituted in such courts upon a subject matter within its constitutional jurisdiction, though none of the defendants are served in the county or circuit wherein the court issuing it sits, are valid legislative enactments and confer no extra-territorial jurisdiction upon Circuit Courts in violation of the Constituton.</p> <p>3. The provision of Chapter 3721, Acts of 1887, authorizing writs of attachments to issue from, a Circuit Court of one circuit to be executed by levy upon defendant’s property in another county or circuit, in actions rightfully brought in such courts, the subject matter of which isi within the constitutional jurisdiction of such court, are valid legislative enactments and confer no extra-territorial jurisdiction upon Circuit Courts, in violation of the Constitution.</p> <p>4. The Circuit Courts of this State are superior courts of general jurisdiction, and nothing is intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a superior court, except that which specially appears so to be. I</p> <p>5. Where an officer places attached property in the hands of another person for safe keeping without the consent of the plaintiff in attachment, he is liable
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- affirming despite variance between the indictment and the jury instructions when defendant was not surprised by the evidence and his substantial rights were not jeopardized
- no prejudice where indictment charged defendant with “intentionally causing” injury, but jury instructions also permitted conviction upon a finding that defendant “attempted to cause” injury
- no prejudice where indictment charged defendant with \intentionally causing\ injury, but jury instructions also permitted conviction upon a finding that defendant \attempted to cause\ injury
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Carter
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.