J. B. PEACOCK AND C. H. HARGRAVES, APPELLANTS,
v.
SUE D. FEASTER, W. D. BOBBITT, LEWIS HORNE, K. W. HORNE AND J. B. NORMAN, JR., AS PARTNERS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF L. HORNE & COMPANY, 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 granted an injunction to restrain the execution of a judgment pending appeal. The appellants were required to post a bond to ensure payment of the judgment if the appeal failed.
Yes, the execution of the judgment should be restrained pending appeal, provided the appellants post a bond sufficient to cover the judgment, interest, and costs of appeal.
“upon an application for injunction to restrain the execution of a judgment at law recovered on May 30th, 1905, by the appellee Sue D. Feaster against the appellants in the Circuit Court of Marion county for the sum of $3,096.92, inclusive of costs, which judgment is involved in the record brought here upon such appeal”
Describes the underlying judgment and the purpose of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants sought an injunction to prevent the execution of a law judgment obtained by appellee Sue D. Feaster. The judgment was for $3,096.92, includ…
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 Injunction Pending Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause, brought here by appeal from the Circuit Court of Marion county in chancery returnable to our next June term, came on for hearing upon an application for injunction to restrain the execution of a judgment at law recovered on May 30th, 1905, by the appellee Sue D. Feaster against the appellants in the Circuit Court of Marion county for the sum of $3,096.92, inclusive of costs, which judgment is involved in the record brought here upon such appeal, after due consideration it is hereby considered and ordered that the said appellee Sue D. Feaster .and all persons claiming under her or acting for her or them be and they are hereby restrained and enjoined from enforcing or collecting the said judgment against the appellants until the said appeal in said cause shall be disposed of here upon its merits, upon the appellants entering into and filing a bond payable to the appellee Sue I).
Feaster in the sum of $3,500, with lawful surety or sureties to be approved by the Circuit Clerk conditioned to pay the said judgment and all interest thereon to accrue and the costs of this appeal in the event the said appeal shall be dismissed or the decree appealed from shall be .affirmed.
This case was decided by Court En Banc.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spafford v. Brevard Cnty., 92 Fla. 617 (Fla. 1926)…sary. ’' A writ of certiorari was issued by the court. A restraining order pending the certiorari was issued by this court under Section 5, Article V, Constitution. Astca Inv. Co. v. Lake County, 86 Fla. 639, 98 South. Rep. 824; Peacock v. Feaster, 52 Fla. 563, 45 South. Rep. 1038. Section 29', ■ Article XYI of the Constitution expressly provides that no private property nor right of way shall be appropriated * until full compensation therefor shall be first'made to the owner, or first secured to him by…
-
Anderson v. City of Ocala, 87 Fla. 257 (Fla. 1924)…of Public Instruction for Hillsborough County, 86 Fla. 254, 97 South. Rep. 384; Antuono v. City of Tampa, filed February 4, 1924. See also Crawford v. Gilchrist, 64 Fla. 41, 59 South. Rep. 963; Astca Inv. Co. v. Lake County, 86 Fla. 639, 98 So. 824; 52 Fla. 563. Chapter 9294, Acts of 1923, above quoted as “expressly provided in such law,” took effect upon “becoming a law, ’ ’ and it became a law when approved by the Governor June 7, 1923. Sees. 18 and 28, Art. III, Const.; Parker v. Evening News Pub. Co.,…