E. G. WILDER, APPELLANT,
v.
J. J. DUNNE, 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.
Appellant Wilder appealed from an order sustaining a demurrer to his cross-bill seeking recovery of taxes and purchase money paid on disputed lands. The court dismissed the appeal because Wilder did not appeal from the subsequent final decree that dismissed his cross-bill, holding that no separate appeal can be taken from an intermediate order when a final decree dismissing the claim is not appealed.
No. An appellant cannot take a separate appeal from an intermediate order (sustaining a demurrer) when a final decree dismissing the underlying claim has been entered and not appealed. The appeal must be dismissed.
“there can be no separate appeal from an order dissolving an injunction while there is a standing order dismissing the bill”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that intermediate orders cannot be separately appealed when a final dismissal order stands unappealed
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn March 1898, Dunne filed an equity bill against Wilder in Polk County Circuit Court seeking cancellation of a tax deed held by Wilder. Wilder answer…
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 Cancellation Of Tax Deed cases and more on FLexlaw
Carter, P. J.
In March, 1898, appellee filed his bill in equity against appellant in the Circuit Court of Polk county praying, among other things, the cancellation of a certain tax deed held by the latter, embracing lands claimed by the former. Appellant after answering the bill filed a cross-bill seeking to recover from appellee certain sums alleged to have been paid for the purchase of the lands at the tax sales, and other sums subsequently paid out for taxes on the lands. A demurrer to the cross-bill was interposed by appellee and upon the hearing had Septeniber 7, 1898, the demurrer was sustained with leave to amend. Subsequently, on October-18, 1898, á final decree was rendered by which the tax deed held by appellant was cancelled, and, among other things, it was decreed therein “that the cross-bill filed herein by defendant E. G. Wilder and the amended cross-bill be each ánd both are dismissed.”
Thereafter, on October 24, 1898, appellant entered this appeal confining it to the order of September 7, 1898, sustaining the demurrer to his cross-bill.
The final decree, though entered prior to the appeal, was not appealed from.
In Burnham v. Driggers, 44 Fla. 168, 32 South. Rep. 796, following Stockton v. Harmon, 32 Fla. 312,13 South. Rep. 833, it was held that “there can be no separate appeal from an order dissolving an injunction while there is a standing order dismissing the bill” not appealed from, and the principle there ruled, is applicable to this case. Victor Sewing Machine Co. v. Heller, 41 Wis. 657; Thornton v. Eaton, 45 Wis. 621; Goldmark v. Rosenfeld, 69 Wis. 469, 34 N. W. Rep. 228.
An order will be entered dismissing the appeal at the cost of the appellant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edulia Smith Price and Bayard R. Price v. Horton, 76 Fla. 537 (Fla. 1918)…idered by the Appellate Court and will be dismissed.” Oneida Land Co. v. Richards, 72 Fla. 116, 72 South. Rep. 646; Banks v. Gunnyard, 63 Fla. 334, 58 South. Rep. 229; Stanley v. Standard Cypress Co., 54 Fla. 583, 45 South. Rep. 478; Wilder v. Dunn, 45 Fla. 662, 33 South. Rep. 508; Burnham v. Driggers, 44 Fla. 168, 32 South. Rep. 796. It was upon this them’y that the motion to dismiss, when first presented, was granted', because the entry of appeal purports on its face to be an appeal from an interlocutor…
-
Stanley v. Standard Cypress Co., 54 Fla. 583 (Fla. 1907)…hat -does not bring up such final decree for review, cannot be considered here, and such an appeal will be dismissed. Stockton v. Harmon, 32 Fla. 312, 13 South. Rep. 833; Burnham v. Driggers, 44 Fla. 168, 32 South. [*585] Rep. 796; Wilder v. Dunne, 45 Fla. 662, 33 South. Rep. 508. Following this rule the said appeal in said cause must, therefore, be, and the same is hereby, dismissed, at the cost of the appellants. All concur.…
-
Meeky Cottrell v. Amerkan, 160 Fla. 390 (Fla. 1948)…eal was from that part of the decree dissolving the injunction and which appeal was taken after a final order dismissing the bill had been entered and the appeal was dismissed upon authority of the case of Stockton v. Harmon, supra. Wilder v. Dunn, 45 Fla. 662, 33 So. 508, was an appeal from an interlocutory order after a final decree had been rendered dismissing the bill, and the appeal was dismissed upon the authority of the Burnham and Stockton cases, supra. Stanley v. Standard Cypress Company, 54 Fla…
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
- Stockton v. Archer Harmon, 32 Fla. 312 (Fla. 1893)
- Burnham v. Driggers, 44 Fla. 168 (Fla. 1902)