last quoted clause in Florida

1927There is nothing inconsistent in this reasoning and the holding of this Court in the case of Gillespie v. Scott, 61 So. 322 , 65 Fla. 175 , in which the Court held an affidavit sufficient which gave the residence of the defendant as "In the City of Chicago, State of Illinois," but it is to be particularly noted that in the Gillespie case the affidavit also contained the statement "but the affiant does not know her more particular or definite address." The last quoted clause of that affidavit constituted a substantial compliance with the requirement of the constructive service statute here unde

1927There is nothing inconsistent in this reasoning and the holding of this Court in the case of Gillespie v. Scott, 61 So. 322 , 65 Fla. 175 , in which the Court held an affidavit sufficient which gave the residence of the defendant as "In the City of Chicago, State of Illinois," but it is to be particularly noted that in the Gillespie case the affidavit also contained the statement "but the affiant does not know her more particular or definite address." The last quoted clause of that affidavit constituted a substantial compliance with the requirement of the constructive service statute here unde

1967Long before that, the same principle had been laid down in the case law of Florida, where plaintiff was denied the right to voluntarily dismiss an action when the defendant had filed counterclaim or in any manner was "praying affirmative relief" or had "acquired * * a substantial right in the cause." Abney v. Hurner, 1929, 97 Fla. 240 , 121 So. 883 ; Spofford v. City Nat.

1967Long before that, the same principle had been laid down in the case law of Florida, where plaintiff was denied the right to voluntarily dismiss an action when the defendant had filed counterclaim or in any manner was "praying affirmative relief" or had "acquired * * a substantial right in the cause." Abney v. Hurner, 1929, 97 Fla. 240 , 121 So. 883 ; Spofford v. City Nat.

1966As an example, the Supreme Court of Florida held in Dicks v. Colonial Finance Corporation, 85 So.2d 874 (1956): "Estoppel is an affirmative defense which must be specially pleaded or is waived if not pleaded." Similarly, the District Court of Appeal, Second District of Florida, in Cook v. Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, 114 So.2d 691 (1959), pointed out that "* * * a statute of limitations and laches are affirmative defenses which should be raised through an answer and not by motion to dismiss." Resolving the question before us in this appeal requires a consideration of th

1966As an example, the Supreme Court of Florida held in Dicks v. Colonial Finance Corporation, 85 So.2d 874 (1956): "Estoppel is an affirmative defense which must be specially pleaded or is waived if not pleaded." Similarly, the District Court of Appeal, Second District of Florida, in Cook v. Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, 114 So.2d 691 (1959), pointed out that "* * * a statute of limitations and laches are affirmative defenses which should be raised through an answer and not by motion to dismiss." Resolving the question before us in this appeal requires a consideration of th

1918It is contended that the refusal to give the last quoted instruction is reversible error under the decision in Davis v. State, 46 Fla. 137 , 35 South.