ANNA INGLIS (MAX)
v.
SOPHIE AVERY
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.
The court held that an order denying reinstatement of an ejectment suit, based on prior equity proceedings, is not an appealable final judgment in the ejectment action.
Appellant sought reinstatement of an ejectment suit after equity proceedings, and this motion was denied. The appellee moved to dismiss the appeal fro…
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 Appealability Of Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellee has filed a motion to dismiss because the judgment appealed from is not one applicable in law. She bases her motion upon Section 59.02, F.S. 1941, F.S.A., which provides:
“Appeals in cases at law lie only from final judgment, except as specified in Sections 59.03, 59.04 and 59.05 of these statutes.”
An examination of the transcript shows that the final judgment in ejectment was entered on May 23, 1946, in favor of the appellee, Sophie Avery, and against the appellant, Anna Inglis (Max); that thereafter a writ of possession was issued under date of September 17, 1946, and executed, by placing Sophie Avery in possession; that proceedings in equity were had, wherein Anna Inglis (Max) sought relief concerning the proceedings had in the ejectment suit; and, on September 29, 1947, appellant, Anna Inglis (Max) filed her motion in the ejectment suit for a reinstatement, which motion was predicated upon the proceedings had in equity and which motion for reinstatement was denied. It is this order denying rein*374statement that is now brought here by appeal, which the appellee, Sophie Avery, has moved to dismiss.
The record before us fails to show any error in the proceedings in the ejectment suit. Anna Inglis (Max) went into equity seeking relief against the judgment at law, and it is the equity suit that she must look for her relief, if any.
The appeal is dismissed.
TERRELL, CHAPMAN and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
THOMAS, C. J., and ADAMS, J., agree to the conclusion only because the motion does not present the questions of error vel non in the ejectment action.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The State of Fla. & the Taxpayers v. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction FOR Sumter Cnty., 86 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1956)…t the territory in the debtor-district that district survived, or, • at least, its area continued to be subject to its debts. A similar situation was considered in the case of Fletcher v. Board of Public Instruction of Gadsden County, 160 Fla. 428, 35 So. 2d 121. We held in that case that bonds issued by a district and validated before consolidation cotild be delivered afterward. We decide in the present cáse that the board in providing for refunding the debt was simply obeying the mandate to “see that the…