JOHN C. WITT AND MARY WITT, APPELLANTS,
v.
HENRY BAARS, TRADING AS H. BAARS & CO., APPELLEES
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 appellate court dismissed an appeal because it was improperly brought by only some of the defendants against whom a joint decree was entered. The court emphasized the fundamental principle that all parties affected by a judgment must be brought before the court.
No, an appeal from a joint decree cannot be prosecuted by only some of the defendants. All parties affected by the judgment must be brought before the appellate court.
“As to all the other defendants the decree is essentially a joint one in form, and we think also a joint one in substance, from an inspection of the record.”
Establishes the nature of the lower court's decree as joint.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA bill to foreclose a mortgage was filed against several defendants. The final decree dismissed the bill as to Mary Witt but found Henry C. Witt, John…
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 Necessary Party cases and more on FLexlaw
Liddon, J.:
The appellee, who was complainant below, brought a bill to foreclose a mortgage against Henry C. Witt John Gfiest, John C. Witt and Mary Witt his wife. The final decree, from which appeal is taken, dismissed the bill of complaint as to the appellant Mary Witt, but adjudged “that the defendant Henry C. Witt, John Heist and John C. Witt, are indebted to the complainant, Henry Baars, in the sum of $1,469.67 principal and interest, and $28.40 costs of suit, and that they do pay the same within five days from the date hereof; and in the event of their failure so to do, then that they and all persons claiming by, through and under them be and are hereby forever barred and foreclosed,” etc. From this decree only the defendants John C. Witt and Mary Witt appealed.
The bill having been dismissed as to the appellant Mary Witt, no relief whatever having been granted against her, or any liability adjudged against her or her estate, she can not appeal; and the appeal as to her should be dismissed for that reason. Loring vs. Wittich, 16 Fla. 323, text 324; 2 Ency. of Pleading and Practice, page 157; Elliott’s App. Proc., sec. 147; Barrett vs. Carter, 69 Miss. 593, 13 South Rep.
625. As to all the other defendants the decree is essentially a joint one in form, and we think also a joint one in substance, from an inspection of the record. It is entered upon the same obligation. In such a case the appeal can not be prosecuted by one of the defendants in his own name alone. The proper practice in such cases is indicated in Whitlock vs. Willard, 18 Fla.
156. A discussion of the subject matter can be found in Guarantee, etc., Co. vs. Buddington, 23 Fla. 514. No objection was made to the want of proper parties, but the objection is a vital one which we can not overlook. Any order which we might make here would necessarily affect the interest of the other defendants who are not before us. It is a fundamental principle in the administration of justice in all courts that all parties who are to be affected by the judgment of a court should be brought before it.
The appeal is dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Credit Indus. Co. v. Remark Chem. Co., Inc., 67 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1953)…of Florida in the same manner as other decrees, judgments and orders.” The general rule'on appeal to review proceedings of an inferior court is that a party to the cause may appeal only from a decision in some respect adverse to him. Witt v. Baars, 36 Fla. 119, 18 So. 330; Peterson v. State ex rel. Harvey, 158 Fla. 406, 28 So. 2d 868. And this rule applies to appeals in proceedings for declaratory relief. See 16 Am.Jur., Declaratory Judgments, page 341, where it is said: “* * * In accordance with the fund…
-
Gen. Dev. Utils. Inc. v. Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 385 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…ing rule that a judgment or decree wholly in favor of a party may not be appealed by him, for he is not aggrieved thereby. North Shore Bank v. Surfside, 72 So. 2d 659 (Fla.1954). In such an instance the appeal will be dismissed. Witt v. Baars (1895) 36 Fla. 119, 18 So. 330; Credit Industrial Co. v. Mark Chemical Co., 67 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1953). Such is the case here; the hearing officer determined that the inadequacy of the economic impact statement rendered these rules an invalid exercise of delegated legis…
-
Nail v. Browning, 74 Fla. 108 (Fla. 1917)…to the stipulation against whom decrees pro confesso were entered, and therefore that none of the appellants are in position to prosecute this appeal. This may be true of those coming within either of the first two classes mentioned (Witt v. Baars, 36 Fla. 119, 18 South. Rep. 330; German-American S. L. & B. Ass’n. v. Schlenker, 170 Ill. App. 565; Cornish & Co. v. West, 89 Minn. 360, 94 N. W. Rep. 1082), but the defendants against whom decrees pro confesso were entered may be heard bn appeal as to any' mat…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Guar. Tr. & Safe Deposit Co. v. Buddington, 23 Fla. 514 (Fla. 1887)
- Whitlock v. Willard, 18 Fla. 156 (Fla. 1881)
- Loring v. Wittich, 16 Fla. 323 (Fla. 1878)