EUGENE C. HALE, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES A. YEAGER, AS EXECUTOR, ETC. 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.
This case involves an appeal from an interlocutory decree in a partition suit. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decree, finding that the allegations in the bill of complaint sufficiently established the parties' rights and interests for partition, especially given the defendant's admission of no meritorious defense.
Errors assigned on previous interlocutory decrees and orders cannot be considered on an appeal from a later interlocutory decree. The decree adjudicating rights and interests for partition is affirmed because the bill of complaint and exhibits prima facie established the parties' rights, and the defendant admitted no meritorious defense.
“This is not a final but an interlocutory decree, and errors assigned on other interlocutory decrees and orders previously made in the cause cannot be considered on this entry of appeal.”
Establishes that prior interlocutory orders are not reviewable on appeal from a later interlocutory decree.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appeal stems from a partition suit where the lower court entered an interlocutory decree adjudicating the rights and interests of the parties and …
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 Partition Suit cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
This appeal is from a decree in a partition suit adjudicating the rights and interests of the respective parties in the lands sought to be partitioned, ordering partition thereof and appointing commissioners to make the partition. This is not a final but an interlocutory decree, and errors assigned on other interlocutory . decrees and orders previously made in the cause cannot be considered on this entry of appeal. Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 48 Fla. 226, 37 South. Rep. 722. The only assignment of error applicable to the decree appealed from is that the court erred in entering-the decree. This assignment is perhaps too general and indefinite to require of the court a critical examination of the entire record. The decree appealed from is not void for want of jurisdiction.
The decree pro confess© entered in the cause admits the truth of the definite and certain allegations of facts contained in the bill of complaint that tend to establish the equities of the case; and the allegations of the bill of complaint and the exhibits properly made a part thereof may be considered in ascertaining .the rights and interests of the parties in the subject matter of the suit where equity has cognizance. 2 Andrews Am. Law, 1633; 16 Cyc. 495; Lybass v. Town of Fort Myers, 56 Fla. 817, 47 South. Rep. 346.
In this case the rights and interests of the complainants appear prima facie by the bill of complaint and the exhibits made a part thereof, and the record shows that counsel for the defendant stated to the court “that there was really no meritorious defence to be made to the partition suit.” It does not affirmatively appear that no testi mony was taken in support of the allegations of the bill, but it does appear that counsel for the defendant was present at the hearing and argued the cause when the decree appealed from was rendered. Under these circumstances the decree adjudicating the rights and interests of the parties for the purposes of partition should be affirmed.
The interlocutory decree appealed from is affirmed.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abrams v. Paul, 453 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…e. Whether the admitted allegations state a cause of action is for the court to determine. Russ v. Gilbert, 19 Fla. 54; Watson v. Seat, 8 Fla. 446; 6 Ency.Pl. & Pr. 117. See also, Lybass v. Town of Ft. Myers, 56 Fla. 817, 47 So. 346; Hale v. Yeager, 57 Fla. 442, 49 So. 544. A judgment by default entitles the plaintiff to the relief for which a proper predicate has been laid in the declaration. See Ocala v. Anderson, 58 Fla. 415, 50 So. 572. If the allegations of the declaration do not form a legal basis f…
-
McCall v. Lee, 66 Fla. 14 (Fla. 1913)…s, though not embraced in the entry of appeal.” Also see Mann v. Jennings, 25 Fla. 730, 6 South. Rep. 771; Lenfesty v. Coe, 26 Fla. 49, 7 South. Rep. 2; Wiggins & Johnson v. Williams, 36 Fla. 637, 18 South. Rep. 859, 80 L. R. A. 754; Hale v. Yeager, 57 Fla. 442, 49 South. Rep. 544; City of Miami v. Miami Realty, Loan & Guaranty Co., 57 Fla. 366, 49 South. Rep. 55; Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496, 50 South. Rep. 867, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 577. Turning our attention to the order from which the appeal was entered,…
-
The N. Am. Accident Ins. Co. v. Moreland, 60 Fla. 153 (Fla. 1910)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 48 Fla. 226 (Fla. 1904)
- Morrison v. Smolarick (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
- Lybass v. The Town of Fort Myers, 56 Fla. 817 (Fla. 1908)