RAY WOODS, AN INDIVIDUAL DOING BUSINESS AS RAY WOODS AUTO CO.,
v.
JAMES E. THOMPSON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A Florida appellate court modified a supersedeas bond order by removing provisions requiring the appellant to pay opposing counsel's attorneys' fees, printing costs, and travel expenses related to the appeal. The court reduced the conditions of the supersedeas bond while maintaining other requirements including return of the automobile and payment of costs and damages.
The court affirmed the supersedeas bond order as modified by striking the provisions requiring payment of reasonable attorneys' fees, printing of briefs, and travel expenses incurred by counsel in connection with oral argument of the appeal. All other conditions of the supersedeas bond, including return of the automobile and payment of interest and costs, remained enforceable.
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that upon the filing by the above named Plaintiff herein of a Supersedeas bond in the sum of $2,000.00, with good and sufficient sureties to be approved by the Clerk of this Court, and conditioned that the plaintiff will make payment of all costs, damages and expenses, caused to or incurred by the defendant by reason of the appeal”
States the original supersedeas bond order requiring payment of costs and damages caused by the appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRay Woods, operating as Ray Woods Auto Co., appealed a replevin action judgment against him brought by James E. Thompson. Woods sought a supersedeas b…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Costs On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before us on motion to vacate supersedeas order or to modify the terms and provisions of the order entered in the court below.
The order in the court below fixing the terms and conditions of the supersedeas bond was as follows:
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that upon the filing by the above named Plaintiff herein of a Supersedeas bond in the sum of $2,000.00, with good and sufficient sureties to be approved by the Clerk of this Court, and conditioned that the plaintiff will make payment of all costs, damages and expenses, caused to or incurred by the defendant by reason of the appeal, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, printing of briefs, travel expenses incurred by counsel in connection with oral argument of the appeal, interest at six (6%) per cent *623from the date on the Supersedeas on the value of the automobile involved, which is hereby fixed by this Court at $1,646.80, being the same amount stated by the Plaintiff in the replevin action; and further conditioned upon the return of the automobile to the Defendant, plus any depreciation in the value of said automobile from the date of the Supersedeas, or in the alternative the cash value of the automobile, to wit; $1,646.80; in the event the Supreme Court of Florida shall affirm the order and judgment appealed from, then the said appeal of the said Plaintiff shall operate as a Supersedeas in this cause, and shall suspend and stay all further proceedings in this court under the verdict and judgment which have heretofore been entered herein, until the determination of said appeal by the Supreme Court of Florida.”
On consideration of said motion, the said order is modified by striking out and eliminating the following:
“Including reasonable attorneys’ fees, printing of briefs, travel expenses incurred by counsel in connection with oral argument of the appeal.”
When so modified, the Order will stand affirmed.
THOMAS, C.J., TERRELL, BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Smith, 100 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1958)…d liable for the allowance of the fee. There are two definite lines of authority throughout the Nation on this subject. See Larson v. Higginbotham, Fla., 66 So. 2d 40; Bernstein v. Bernstein, Fla., 43 So. 2d 356, and Woods v. Thompson, 158 Fla. 622, 29 So. 2d 446. See also older Florida cases, Kahn v. American Surety Company, 120 Fla. 50, 162 So. 335; Tonnelier v. Tonnelier, 133 Fla. 691, 182 So. 900; which appear to hold the contrary on the point, but all of which have been overruled by Larson v. Higginboth…