JAMES H. STANLEY AND RAYMIE B. STANLEY, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
STANDARD CYPRESS COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from an interlocutory order that was filed after a final decree had been entered in the same case. The court held that an appeal from an interlocutory order cannot be considered when a final decree has subsequently been rendered and is not brought up for review.
An appeal taken solely and expressly from an interlocutory order in a cause in equity, subsequent to the rendition of a final decree in the cause, that does not bring up such final decree for review, cannot be considered and must be dismissed.
“Under the repeated rulings of this court an appeal taken solely and expressly from an interlocutory order in a cause in equity, subsequently to the rendition of a final decree in the cause, that does not bring up such final decree for review, cannot be considered here, and such an appeal will be dismissed.”
Establishes the core holding that interlocutory appeals filed after final decree cannot be considered unless the final decree is brought up for review.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final decree was entered in the case on August 21, 1907. On September 26, 1907, the appellants entered an appeal that was expressly confined to an i…
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.
Per Curiam.
— This cause came' on to be heard upon motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal taken herein.
There are two entries of appeal in the cause, the first entered on the 29th day of August, 1907, returnable to the first day of the January term 1908, the second entered on the 26th day of September, 1907 and made returnable on the 28th day of November, 1907. The appellee’s motion is to dismiss this last appeal entered on September 26th, 1907, upon the ground that at the time of its entry there was already pending another, appeal ’ in the same cause and from-the same order therein. Under the provisions of Chapter 5638 statute laws of 1907, the first of the above attempts at an appeal entered on August 29th, 1907, and made returnable to the first day of the January term 1908 was a nullity because said statute required all appeals to be made returnable to' a day more than thirty, but not more than ninety, days from the date of their entry. The first appeal being a nullity did not stand in the way of the entry of a proper appeal made properly returnable. Parker v. Evening News Pub. Co. 54 Fla. 544, 44 South. Rep. 718. The motion to dismiss upon the grounds made, cannot, therefore, be granted; but the court upon inspection of the transcript for the purposes of said motion, finds that there was a -final decree entered in said cause on the 21st day of August, 1907, from which no appeal has been taken, the said entry of appeal made on September 26th, 1907 and made returnable to the 28th day of November, 1907, being.in express terms confined to an interlocutory order in the case overruling a plea of the defendant to the bill of complaint. Under the repeated rulings of this court an appeal taken solely and expressly from an interlocutory order in a cause in equity, subsequently to the rendition of a final decree in the cause, that -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. 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Annie Banks v. Guinyard, 63 Fla. 334 (Fla. 1912)…e rendition of a final decree therein, solely and expressly from an interlocutory order therein, that does not bring up such final decree for review, cannot be considered by the appellate court and will be dismissed. Stanley v. Standard Cypress Co., 54 Fla. 583, 45 South. Rep. 478. As the appeal was entered after the final decree of May 31, 1911, was rendered, and was taken from only the interlocutory decree of May 26, 1911, the appeal does not bring the final decree here; and in the absence of an appeal…
-
Edulia Smith Price and Bayard R. Price v. Horton, 76 Fla. 537 (Fla. 1918)…up such final decree for review, can not be considered 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…
-
Oneida Land Co. v. Richards, 72 Fla. 116 (Fla. 1916)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Parker v. The Evening News Publ'g Co., 54 Fla. 544 (Fla. 1907)
- Stockton v. Archer Harmon, 32 Fla. 312 (Fla. 1893)
- Burnham v. Driggers, 44 Fla. 168 (Fla. 1902)
- Wilder v. Dunne, 45 Fla. 662 (Fla. 1903)