E. D. KEEFER, AS LIQUIDATOR OF THE MIAMI BEACH BANK & TRUST COMPANY, A FLORIDA BANKING CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
EMILY L. GRAHAM, A WIDOW, BEN SHEPARD AND MARY K. W. SHEPARD, HIS WIFE, A. H. PATTEN AND ELIZABETH K. PATTEN, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
E. D. KEEFER, AS LIQUIDATOR OF THE MIAMI BEACH BANK & TRUST COMPANY, A FLORIDA BANKING CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
EMILY L. GRAHAM, A WIDOW, BEN SHEPARD AND MARY K. W. SHEPARD, HIS WIFE, A. H. PATTEN AND ELIZABETH K. PATTEN, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
102 Fla. 1072
Florida Supreme Court (1931)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 137 So. 276
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
— This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said order; it is therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said order of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yates v. Peninsular Sec. Corp., 107 Fla. 802 (Fla. 1932)…drawn is plainly multifarious as to the subjects of the litigation, and was therefore subject to a demurrer. Meloche v. Meloche, 101 Fla. 659, 133 Sou. Rep. 339; Trust Company of Florida v. Crider, 102 Fla. 593, 136 Sou. Rep. 434; Ratliff v. Nowery, 102 Fla. 1072, 136 Sou. Rep. 895. See also Crandall v. Owen, 97 Fla. 198, 120 Sou. Rep. 319; and Mountein v. King, 75 Fla. 12, 77 Sou. Rep. 630. In this case the basic and fundamental equitable cause of action stated, is the claim that the four second mortgage b…
-
Tenn. Pub. Co. v. Carpenter, 100 F.2d 728 (6th Cir. 1938)…dholders were in court in propria persona, it was unnecessary for the trustees to intervene, for they had no rights except those which were actually asserted by the bondholders. They were proper, but not indispensable parties. Cf. Ratliff v. Nowery, 102 Fla. 1072, 136 So. 895; Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. Chicago, 170 Ill. 580, 48 N.E. 967, 44 L.R.A. 405; Bowman v. Breyfogle, 145 Ky. 443, 140 S.W. 694, Ann.Cas.1914B, 938; McColgan v. Magee, 172 Cal. 182, 155 P. 995, Ann.Cas.1917D, 1050; Tompkins v. Levy, 87…