SAM BUCHANAN, WILLIAM BUCHANAN AND F. A. BUCHANAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SURVIVING PARTNERS, HERETOFORE AND NOW TRADING AND DOING BUSINESS AS BUCHANAN BROTHERS, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARGARET SMITH, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, DEWEY SMITH, MRS. LASEVIVE FOLSOM, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, J. R. FOLSOM, MRS. EMILY WHITFIELD, SURVIVING WIDOW OF J. H. WHITFIELD, NOW DECEASED, 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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a final decree in equity but modified it to divide costs equally between the parties, finding that neither side had been diligent in avoiding litigation expenses. The court cited precedent holding that decrees should be affirmed if errors did not cause a miscarriage of justice.
Yes, the final decree should be affirmed because any errors in pleading or procedure did not result in a miscarriage of justice. However, the decree should be modified to divide the costs equally between the complainants and defendants.
“holding that a final decree in equity will be affirmed where entire ease shows errors, if any, in pleading or procedure, have not resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”
Establishes the standard for affirming a final decree in equity.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a final decree in equity. The specific facts leading to the litigation are not detailed in this opinion. The appeal concerned the fi…
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.
The final decree in this case should be affirmed on the authority of Lake Mabel Development Corp. v. Bird, 99 Fla. 253, 126 Sou. Rep. 356; Day v. Weadock, 101 Fla. 333, 134 Sou. Rep. 525, holding that a final decree in equity will be affirmed where entire ease shows errors, if any, in pleading or procedure, have not resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
But said decree should be modified so as to divide the *1131costs and impose such costs, both in the lower court and in this court, equally upon complainants and defendants it appearing that neither of the adverse parties has been diligent in avoiding the necessity for the expenses of this litigation. Chandler v. Sherman, 16 Fla. 99.
Modified and affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield and Ellis, J.J., concur.
Terrell, J., dissents.
Brown, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gaulden v. Kirk, 47 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1950)…ity of Sebring v. Wolf, 105 Fla. 516, 141 So. 736; State ex rel. Howarth v. Jordan, 105 Fla. 322, 140 So. 908; Gray v. Central Florida Lumber Co., 104 Fla. 446, 140 So. 320, 141 So. 604; State ex rel. Gillespie v. Thursby, 104 Fla. 103, 139 So. 372, 140 So. 775; State v. Goodgame, 91 Fla. 871, 108 So. 836, 47 A.L.R. 118; State ex *572 rel. Clarkson v. Philips, 70 Fla. 340, 70 So. 367; Ann.Cas. 1918A, 138; Peninsular Industrial Ins. Co. v. State, 61 Fla. 376, 55 So. 398; State ex rel. Attorney General v. Gr…
-
State v. Baskin, 111 Fla. 667 (Fla. 1933)…Fla. 92, 145 Sou. Rep. 858. In the case of State v. Mitchell, supra, this Court distinguished the previous decisions in State ex rel. East Side Bank v. Holloway, 105 Fla. 616, 142 Sou. Rep. 221, and State ex rel. Gillespie v. Thursby, 104 Fla. 103, 140 Sou. Rep. 775, and pointed out why such holdings were not applicable to a case like that now before us, which is no different in principle from the status of things presented in State ex rel. Aldrich v. Mitchell, supra, wherein we held the issuance of a peremptor…1 / 2
-
State ex rel. Herbert L. Aldrich v. Mitchell, 108 Fla. 233 (Fla. 1933)…in error rely upon the decision in State ex rel East Side Bank v. Holloway, 105 Fla. 616, 142 Sou. Rep. 221, to support the ruling of the Circuit Judge, while plaintiffs in error cite the decision in State ex rel. Gillespie v. Thursby 104 Fla. 103, 140 Sou. Rep. 775 to support their position to the contrary. In the latter cited case (State ex rel. Gillespie v. Thursby, supra) this Court said: “The rule is well settled that officers required to perform a duty for the benefit of holders [*235] of public securiti…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lake Mabel Dev. Corp. v. Bird, 99 Fla. 253 (Fla. 1930)
- Day v. Weadock, 101 Fla. 333 (Fla. 1931)
- Chandler v. Sherman, 16 Fla. 99 (Fla. 1877)