DEVANE
v.
SMITH
Administration of guardianship of the estate of a minor was removed from the probate into the circuit court in equity. Petition was filed by appellee to have the guardian removed and himself, father of the minor, appointed in his stead. The guardian's demurrer to the petition was overruled, and this appeal is prosecuted from the decree overruling said demurrer. Upon consideration of this cause in consultation, the conclusion has been reached that the interlocutory decree rendered in this cause is not appealable. The petition here cannot be construed as a bill in equity so as to come within the influence of section 6079 of the Code of 1923. We find no statute authorizing an appeal from such an interlocutory decree rendered on a petition of this character. Appeal is statutory, and the question is a jurisdictional one. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
SAYRE, BOULDIN, and BROWN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Tilton v. Horton, 103 Fla. 497 (Fla. 1931)…-bill; but if by a counterclaim in his answer, it must be stated “in short and simple form.” The quoted phrase was not' set off by commas in the original Act as now appears in Revisions. [*509] This Court in the case of Turner v. Utley, 93 Fla. 910, 112 So. 837, held that “the cause of action pleaded in such counter-claim must be of equitable cognizance and, as was the ease with the cross-bill, must set' up matters arising out of or connected with the subject-matter of the original bill.” See also Lovett v…
-
Peacock Hotel, Inc. v. Cordelia Shipman and A. K. Shipman, 103 Fla. 633 (Fla. 1931)…ny special reply to be made, an order to that effect should have been sought and obtained from the Circuit Judge as provided for in Section 4907, C. 6. L. supra. See Lovett vs. Lovett, 93 Fla. 611, 112 Sou. Rep. 768 and Turner v. Utley, 93 Fla. 910, 112 So. 837, for the rule obtaining in this connection. All other points raised and urged by the appellant have been considered but a discussion of them is not deemed necessary. It is sufficient to state that no ground of reversal has been made to appear. The…
-
Norris v. Jonas Eikenberry, 103 Fla. 104 (Fla. 1931)…ing Bros. Lbr. Co. v. McDonald Amusement Co., 36 Fed. (2d) 483. The above cases cite American Mills Co. v. American Surety Co., 260 U. S. 360, 67 L. Ed. 306, 43 Sup. Ct. 149, to sustain -the conclusion stated. In Turner v. Utley, 93 Fla. 910, 915; 112 So. 837, we did say that “Substantially all authorities hold or concede the proposition that, prima facie, a defendant is entitled to seek [*117] by way of counter claim against the complainant, severally, or against the complainant and co-defendant or oth…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence