S. A. RAWLS AND T. E. BRIDGES, PARTNERS AS T. E. BRIDGES & COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
THOMAS N. CARLTON, 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.
This case involves an appeal by a partnership, T. E. Bridges & Company, from an interlocutory order sustaining an exception to their joint answer. The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the other defendant, Consolidated Land Company, did not join in the appeal, and the record did not clarify if the order solely affected the appealing partners' interests.
No, the appeal must be dismissed. When an interlocutory order may affect the rights of parties who have filed a joint answer, and only one party appeals without the other joining, the appellate court cannot proceed without a clearer understanding of the separate interests involved.
“S. A. Rawls and T. E. Bridges as partners alone appealed from this interlocutory order. The Consolidated Land Company did not join in this appeal, and has not appeared here.”
Establishes the procedural posture of the appeal and the absence of a co-defendant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas N. Carlton sued Consolidated Land Company and T. E. Bridges & Company (a partnership) seeking to cancel a deed and enjoin trespassing. The part…
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 Deed cases and more on FLexlaw
Hocker, J.
The appellee filed a bill in the Circuit Cburt of DeSoto county against the 'Consolidated Land Company, a corporation, and S. A. Rawls and T. E. Bridges as partners doing business as T. E. Bridges & Company, praying for the cancellation of a certain deed from Peacock-Hunt-West Company to the Consolidated L|and Company conveying lands claimed to be owned by the appellee, and for an injunction against trespassing on the same by T. E. Bridges & Company.
It appears fromi the bill and answer that T.
E. Bridges & Gompany are working the land for’ turpentine purposes, under a contract made by the Consolidated Land Company with Sweat Brothers & Company and others, which contract was assigned 'by these parties to.
T. E. Bridges & Company, but the terms and conditions of said contract are not set forth in the bill or answer. The Consolidated Land Company and T. 'E. Bridges &. Company filed what is termed, in the introductory part, a joint and several answer, but which in reality appears to be a joint answer, as no separate rights or defences are therein set up. The complainant excepted to a part of this answer, and the court sustained the exception.
S. A. Rawls and T.
E. Bridges as partners alone appealed from this interlocutory order. The Consolidated Land Company did not join in this appeal, and has not appeared here. We are unable to say that the order of the court only affected the interests of T.
E. Bridges & Gompany, because as the terms of the contract under which they claim, the lands are mot set up, we do not know to what extent, if any, the rights and interests of the Consolidated Land Company are affected by the order appealed from. Under such circumstances the appeal must be dismissed. Harison v. Ocala Building & Loan Ass’n., 52 Fla. 522, 42 South. Rep. 696; Ferris v. Ferris, 43 Fla. 358, 31 South. Rep. 345; Witt v. Baars 36 Fla. 119, 18 South. Rep. 330; Sarasota Ice, Fish & Power Co. v. Lyle, 53 Fla. 1069, 43 South. Rep. 602.
Taylor and Parichill, JJ., concur;
Shackleford, C. J. and Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hay v. Frank W. Isetts and wife, 98 Fla. 1026 (Fla. 1929)…should be made parties to the appeal .therefrom and when one of them is omitted from the appeal and fails to appear the appeal will be dismissed. Bate v. Cook, supra, text 44; Sherlock v. Couper, 43 Fla. 51, 29 So. R. 444; Bridges & Co. v. Carlton, 56 Fla. 843, 48 So. R. 46; Ferris v. Ferris, 43 Fla. 358, 31 So. R. 345; Buck v. All Parties, 86 Fla. 86, 97 So. R. 313. When an appeal has been taken and parties who have a vital and pecuniary interest in the decree appealed from are not made parties to the a…
-
Faye Stovall v. Stovall, 77 Fla. 116 (Fla. 1919)…ppellees. Where an injunction is granted against two parties in a cause and only one of the parties appeals from the order, but the other party appears to have a substantial right or duty therein, the appeal will be dismissed. See Rawls v. Carlton, 56 Fla. 843, 48 South. Rep. 46; Nicohls & Johnson v. Frank, 59 Fla. 588, 52 South. Rep. 146; Henry Vogt Mach. Co. v. Milton Land & Investment Co., 74 Fla. 116, 76 South. Rep. 695. In this case the appeal yms filed May 3, 1917, and is made “returnable to a day…
-
Henry v. Bate and Wife, 89 Fla. 40 (Fla. 1925)…om it was entered should be made parties to the appeal, therefrom, and when one of them is omitted from the appeal and fails to appear, the appeal will be dismissed. Sherlock v. Cooper, 43 Fla. [*45] 51, 29 South. Rep. 444; Bridges & Co. v. Carlton, 56 Fla. 843, 48 South. Rep. 46. The appeal is dismissed at the cost of the appellants. Taylor, C. J., and Browne, J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and West and Terrell, J. J., concur-in the opinion.…
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 Sarasota Ice v. Lyle & Co., 53 Fla. 1069 (Fla. 1907)
- Witt v. Baars, 36 Fla. 119 (Fla. 1895)
- Josiah Ferris v. Ferris, 43 Fla. 358 (Fla. 1901)
- Noble W. Harison and William H. Harison v. Ocala Bldg. & Loan Ass'n & W. W. Clyatt, 52 Fla. 522 (Fla. 1906)