NICHOLS & JOHNSON, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
W. L. FRANK, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from a decree that set aside a land conveyance and subjected the land to partnership debts, because not all interested parties were before the court. The Court held that complete justice requires all parties substantially benefited by the decree to participate in the appeal.
The Court held that it must dismiss the appeal because all parties directly and substantially interested in the main feature of the decree are not before the court. Complete justice in orderly procedure requires all interested parties to be heard when a decree's reversal would injure them.
“In determining the correctness of the decree on the main equities of the case, to-wit, the subjection of the lands to the debts of creditors, all who are interested in and benefited by such decree are entitled to be heard.”
Establishes the foundational rule that all interested parties must be present when the main equities of a decree are questioned on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Nichols & Johnson sought to appeal a decree that set aside a conveyance of land and subjected that land to the payment of debts from a 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 Right To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
This appeal is from a decree setting-aside a conveyance of land and subjecting the land to the debts of a partnership of which the grantor was a member. The appeal was dismissed as to one of the appellees in whose favor the payment of a claim was included in the decree. Upon taking up the case for final disposition on the merits it appears that the question to be determined is whether the land was rightly subjected to the payment of the debts of the firm and not whether the amounts stated in the decree are properly adjudicated in favor of the several appellees.
In determining the correctness of the decree on the main equities of the case, to-wit, the subjection of the lands to the debts of creditors, all who are interested in and benefited by such decree are entitled to be heard. The appellants ask a reversal of the decree and they should have all interested parties before the court. Should the decree rendering the land subject to the debts be reversed it is obvious that either the appellee who is not here would be injured thereby without a hearing or else the decree of this court will be anomalous in reversing a decree on which all the claims adjudged depend, except as to one appellee who is not heard but who has no better right than those who are heard on the appeal.
As all the appellees directly and substantially interested in the main feature of the decree, on which the rights of all the appellees depend, are not before the court so that complete justice may be done in orderly procedure, the court must decline to consider the merits of the cause and dismiss the appeal. See 2 Cyc. 764; see also Continental Nat. Building & Loan Ass’n. v. Miller, 41 Fla. 418, 26 South. Rep. 725.
,It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henry Vogt Mach. Co. v. Milton Land & Inv. Co., 74 Fla. 116 (Fla. 1917)…mine the correctness of a decree all who are interested in and benefitted by such decree are entitled to be heard, and should be before the court by proper proceedings if they were parties to the cause in the court below. Nichols & Johnson v. Frank, 59 Fla. 588, 52 South. Rep. 146. The acknowledgment by counsel of service of a copy [*121] of the. written directions to the clerk to make up the transcript, with consent that he should at once commence the preparation of the same, is no waiver of the right to…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Inv. Corp. OF S. Fla. v. Bd. OF Bus. Reg. of the State of Fla., 227 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1969)…eviewed must be made parties to the appeal.The refusal or failure to do so denies those interested and not made parties due process of law. Harison v. Ocala Building and Loan Association, 52 Fla. 522, 42 So. 696 (1906); Nichols and Johnson v. Frank, 59 Fla. 588, 52 So. 146 (1910); and Headley v. Lasseter, 147 So. 2d 154 (Fla.Apps. 1962). It is stated in Tibbetts v. Olson, 91 Fla. 824, 108 So. 679 (1926), “The Constitution is designed to prescribe and limit governmental powers and to secure individual rig…
-
Faye Stovall v. Stovall, 77 Fla. 116 (Fla. 1919)…s 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 in the January Term * * * 1917, not less than thirty nor mor…
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
- The Cont'l Nat'l Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Miller, 41 Fla. 418 (Fla. 1899)