Case Name: Farland Loan & Savings Company, a Corporation, Petitioner, v. A. R. Pittman, Defendant
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1933-02-23
Citations: 108 Fla. 442
Docket Number: 
Parties: Farland Loan & Savings Company, a Corporation, Petitioner, v. A. R. Pittman, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 108
Pages: 442–443

Head Matter:
Farland Loan & Savings Company, a Corporation, Petitioner, v. A. R. Pittman, Defendant.
146 So. 554.
Division B.
Opinion filed February 23, 1933.
Edgar W. Waybright, for Petitioner;
William D. Morgan, for Respondent.

Opinion:
Buford, J.
This case is before us on writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Duval County.
Petitioner procured a judgment against the defendant in the Civil Court of Record of Duval County. Writ of garnishment was sued out and served on the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, which company' answered admitting indebtedness to the defendant. Defendant filed affidavit claiming homestead exemption as the head of a family residing at 2539 Beaver St., Jacksonville, Florida. Traverse of such affidavit was filed. The issues came on to be tried and resulted in a directed verdict in favor of the defendant.
Motion for new trial was made and denied.
Writ of error was taken and the judgment of the Civil Court of Record affirmed by the Circuit Court. Writ of certiorari issued from this Court to review the proceedings.
• The' only question attempted to be presented to us is whether or not the evidence was sufficient to support the judgment based upon the finding that the defendant was and is the head of a family within the purview of the provisions of Section 3885 R. G. S., 5792 C. G. L. The issue is presented by motion to quash.
The record and briefs have been examined and considered and we find that motion to quash the writ of certiorari should be granted on authority of the opinion and judgment in the case of Hamway v. S. A. L. Ry. Co., 101. Fla. 1483, 136 Sou. 628, when taken and considered in connection with .the opinion and judgment in the case of Davis v. Miami Beach Bank & Trust Co., 99 Fla, 1282, 128 Sou. 817, and cases there cited. It is so ordered.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Brown, J. J., concur.