M. B. HERMAN, AND ARTHUR N. HERMAN AND BESSIE HERMAN, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
H. J. PEACOCK, APPELLEE
M. B. HERMAN, AND ARTHUR N. HERMAN AND BESSIE HERMAN, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
H. J. PEACOCK, APPELLEE
103 Fla. 438
Florida Supreme Court (1931)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 137 So. 704
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
This is an appeal from a final decree in a suit to foreclose a mortgage. Error is predicated on the final decree, the decree confirming the sale, the appointment of a receiver, refusal to vacate the order appointing the receiver, and the decree striking a portion of appellant’s answer.
We have examined each of these assignments and while the procedure was not in every respect regular and in conformity with good practice, such procedural errors as were possibly committed were harmless and the final decree reached a just conclusion. It is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Special v. Ivo Baux, M.D., 79 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…shown by the record, the jury should not have returned any other verdict than that which was returned.”). . Other civil cases applying the outcome oriented analysis are Rance v. Hutchinson, 131 Fla. 460, 179 So. 777, 780 (1938); Herman v. Peacock, 103 Fla. 438, 137 So. 704 (1931); Routh v. Richards, 103 Fla. 757, 138 So. 72 (1931). . See also Josey v. Futch, 254 So. 2d 786, 787 (Fla.1971) (following Stecher) ("[T]he essential consideration is evidence of influence on the jury....”). . In 1985, the year…