R. H. RAMSEY ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
GEORGE E. WELLS, APPELLEE
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.
R. H. Ramsey and G. E. Palen appealed the overruling of their demurrer to a mortgage foreclosure bill filed by George E. Wells. The Florida Supreme Court dismissed the appeal due to defects in the appellate record and proceedings, finding the transcript incomplete and lacking proper certification of all proceedings.
The court dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits of the demurrer ruling due to defects in the appellate record and proceedings, including an incomplete certified transcript and the procedural question of whether only two defendants could appeal a decree affecting all defendants.
“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the deficiency in the appellate record that led to dismissal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWells filed a foreclosure bill against Brazier, his wife, Palen, Ramsey, Henry, and Edwards regarding real estate subject to a mortgage executed by Br…
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 Transcript Of Record cases and more on FLexlaw
Mabry, C. J.:
It is shown from what is certified to us as the transcript of the record iu this case that appellee Wells filed .a bill against William H. Brazier and Mary, his wife, tx.
E. Palen, R.
H. Ramsey, W.
T. Henry and Elmira E. Edwards for the purpose of foreclosing a mortgage executed by Brazier to Wells. It is alleged that Palen, Ramsey arid Henry claim to have some interest in all >or portions of the real estate described in the mortgage under and by virtue of certain tax sales, but that the tax sales are void for reasons specially mentioned Elmira E. Edwards, it is alleged, claims to own an interest in some portions of the lands, but whatever interest she owns is subordinate to the rights of complainants. The bill was demurred to, and the demurrer being-overruled, Ramsey and Palen entered an appeal from such ruling to this court.
Counsel for appellee filed in this court a waiver of the issuance and service of citation, but do not, as they state in the paper filed, waive any defect in the appellate proceedings. They do not file any brief in the case.
The overruling of the demurrer is assigned as error by Ramsey and Palen, but on examining the record we have decided to dismiss the case without considering the correctness of the ruling on demurrer. The certificate of the clerk to the transcript states that “the foregoing pages numbered from one to thirteen inclusive constitute a true copy of. the bill of complaint, exhibits and demurrer of G-.
E. Palen and R.
H. Ramsey, together with the proceedings thereon, in the case of George E. Wells, complainant, and William EL Brazier, Mary Brazier, his wife, G.
E. Palen, R. EL Ramsey, W.
T. Henry and Elmira E. Edwards, defendants, as appears upon the files and records of my office.” The case is submitted to us on such a certified record, and from it we can not know that it contains •all the proceedings of the case up to the time of entering the appeal, nor is there any proper showing that we have before us a correct transcript of the record of the judgment in the case. We decline to consider the merits of a case on such a transcript. Prom what we llave before us it appears that Palen and Ramsey alone entered an appeal from the decree overruling the demurrer, and if we were to consider the case on the record presented, the. question would arise as to whether the decree entered can be brought here for review by appeal taken in the name of only two of the defendants to the bill. • The only proper order we can make on the record as it is presented to us is to dismiss the appeal, and it will accordingly be so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clark v. Cochran, 77 Fla. 98 (Fla. 1919)…rel. Drane, 56 Fla. 241, 47 South. Rep. 924; Burnham v. Driggers, 44 Fla. 168, 32 South. Rep. 796; First Nat. Bank of Pensacola v. Oxford Lake Line, 45 Fla. 275, 34 South. Rep. 893; Dees v. Cassels, 54 Fla. 485, 44 South. Rep. 1013; Ramsey v. Wells, 36 Fla. 88, 18 South. Rep. 181; Merchants’ Nat. Bank of Jacksonville v. Grunthal, 38 Fla. 93, 20 South. Rep. 809; McRainey v. Jarrell, 59 Fla. 585, 52 South. Rep. 10. The cause may be reinstated upon compliance with the terms of Chapter 5898, Laws of 1909, Se…