THE CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
D. A. MILLER ET AL., 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 addresses a motion to dismiss an appeal for failure to include necessary parties, finding a procedural defect in how parties were named in the appeal entry but permitting amendment rather than dismissal since all parties appeared and briefed the merits.
The court held that parties to an appeal must be named either in the caption or body of the entry of appeal, and that use of 'et al.' does not constitute proper inclusion of parties. However, since all proper parties appeared and submitted briefs on the merits, the court permitted amendment of the appeal entry rather than dismissal.
“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the court's holding on the procedural requirement for naming parties in appeal entries
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Continental National Building and Loan Association and related entities appealed an interlocutory decree from the Circuit Court of Alachua County.…
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.
Taylor, C. J.:
The appellees move to dismiss the appeal in this cause upon the following grounds: 1. That it appears by the record in said cause that necessary parties appellee in said appeal have not been included and embraced in such appeal, and that said cause can not and should not be determined in the absence of such parties. 2. The record shows that a large number of parties interested in said, decree as complainants below, and who became such'long prior to> the entry of said appeal, have been purposely and wilfully omitted by appellants in said appeal proceedings.
The briefs of counsel for the movers contend that the record shows that subsequently to the rendition of the interlocutory decree appealed from, but prior to the entry of the appeal therefrom, numerous persons have been made parties complainant to the bill, and they urge that these subsequently made parties should have been • included and made parties appellee to the appeal. The record filed here upon the appeal shows no such addition of new parties complainant. Upon the ground contended for the motion is without merit and is therefore denied.
Upon the consideration of this motion, however, the court finds another defect in the entry of the appeal, which is as follows:
D. A. Miller et al. vs. Continental National Building and Loan Association et al.
The complainants in the above entitled cause will take notice that we do hereby, in vacation, by our solicitor, enter our appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Florida to be held in Tallahassee in said State on the second Tuesday in January, A. D. 1898, to that part and so much of the interlocutory decree entered in said cause on the 31st day of July, A. D'. 1897, in vacation, by the Hon. Judge of said Circuit Court of Alachua county, which sustains certain of the exceptions to Master’s report, and, further adjudging and decreeing the transfer of the assets of the Florida National Building and Loan Association to be void and of no effect as to certain parties, and further appointing a receiver in said cause. ’ Respectfully,
The Continental National Building and Loan Association, The Florida National Building and Loan Association, The Fernandina Building and. Loan Association, The First National Bank of Gainesville, C. M. Ackerman, G. W. Hyde and Jas. M. Graham, by Horatio Davis, their Solicitor. The following named persons were parties complainant to the bill and to the decree appealed from, vis: D. A. Miller, F. P. Gaffney, H. C. Groves, Alexander McIntyre, Drucilla Agnew and Sarah M. Agiiew, yet none of them are named in the entry of appeal, except by the abbreviation “et al.” with the exception of.D. A. Miller. This, according to the ruling of this court in State ex rel. Andreu v. Canfield., et al.,40 Fla. 36, 23 Sou Rep. 591, and in Whitlock v. Willard, 18 Fla. 156, makes D. A. Miller alone a party appellee to the appeal thus entered. All parties, both appellants and appellees, to an appeal should.be named either in the caption to, or in th are attempted to be included therein by the use of the abbreviation “ei al.” can not be considered as parties to the appeal. But inasmuch as no attack is made upon the entry of the appeal on this ground, and as all of the proper parties appellee have appeared here and submitted the cause by brief upon the merits, the appellants are hereby permitted, within fifteen days from the filing of this opinion, to amend their entry of appeal by filing such amendment in this court. Whitlock v. Willard, supra.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vincent v. Walker D. Hines, 79 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1920)…L. Vincent alone and would, be fatally defective if M. L. Vincent alone has not a right to appeal from the decree rendered. State, ex rel., Andreu v. Canfield, 40 Fla. 36, 23 South. Rep. 591; Continental Nat. Building & Loan [*571] Ass’n. v. Miller, 41 Fla. 418, 26 South. Rep. 725; National Bank of Lancaster v. Newheart, 41 Fla. 470, 27 South. Rep. 297; Lowe v. DeLaney, 54 Fla. 480, 44 South. Rep. 710. Assuming that M. L. Yincent alone may properly take an appeal in this case, a consideration of the merit…
-
Buck v. All Parties Claiming Interest in the Prop. Involved as Heirs, 86 Fla. 86 (Fla. 1923)…by the statute, this court will acquire no jurisdiction of the person of an appellee from the record of such defective entry. See also State ex rel. Andreu v. Canfield 40 Fla. 36, 23 South. Rep. 591; Continental Nat. Building & Loan Ass’n. v. Miller 41 Fla. 418, 26 South. Rep. 725. In the later case the court speaking through Mr. Chief Justice Taylor said: “All parties, both appellants and appellees, to an appeal should be individually named, either in the caption to, or in the body of, the entry of appea…
-
Saddler v. Reddin Smith, 54 Fla. 671 (Fla. 1907)…. And so wé have held that in a writ of error or appeal, all parties thereto must be named and cannot be included in the words et al. State ex rel. Andreu v. Canfield, 40 Fla. 36, 23 South. Rep. 591; Continental Nat. Building & Loan Ass’n v. Miller, 41 Fla. 418, 26 South. Rep. 725; See also 16 Cyc. 815. While the words et al. are incapable of standing in the place of the names of parties required by law to be stated in a subpoena or writ of error, they may be used in indorsing the title of the cause on the…
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
- The State of Fla. ex rel. John Andreu v. Heth Canfield, 40 Fla. 36 (Fla. 1898)
- Whitlock v. Willard, 18 Fla. 156 (Fla. 1881)