Hamburg v. Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance

Citations

• 42 Fla. 86

Syllabus

<p>1. Under the statutes of amendments in force in this State trial courts have power to allow amendments as to parties by striking out the nominal plaintiff and permitting the suit to proceed in the name of the use plaintiff as sole plaintiff.</p> <p>2. Though an order permitting a plaintiff to amend does not specifically direct an amendment as to parties, yet if its language is broad enough to include an amendment of that nature, and such amendment is actually made, and the amended pleading is treated by the court and the parties as having been properly filed by proceeding to final judgment thereon, the amendment will be regarded as having been properly allowed and made.</p> <p>3. Where in a suit originally instituted by two persons jointly leave is given to amend, and an amended declaration is filed wherein one of the original plaintiffs assumes the position of nominal and the other of use plaintiff, and subsequently in pursuance of leave given to amend an amended declaration is filed wherein the name of the nominal plaintiff is omitted and 'the use plaintiff appears as sole plaintiff suing in his own right, and the cause subsequently proceeds to final judgment upon said amended declaration to which final judgment the former nominal plaintiff is not a party, and it appears that such former nominal plaintiff has impliedly consented to and acquiesced in the propriety of the amendments, the last amendment operates as an abandonment of the suit so far as he is concerned, and having abandoned the suit and ceased to be a party thereto prior to final judgment and such final judgment not purporting to affect him in any respect, he has no right to maintain a writ of error from such judgment.</p>