ANNIE BANKS, ALIAS ANNIE SMITH AND HENRY BANKS, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIE GUINYARD, 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 is a partition suit where the Florida Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from an interlocutory decree because the appellants appealed only from the intermediate order after the final decree had already been rendered, failing to properly appeal from the final partition sale decree.
An appeal taken after a final decree was rendered, limited solely to an interlocutory decree and not bringing the final decree up for review, cannot be considered by the appellate court and must be dismissed.
“A decree in a partition suit adjudicating the rights and interests of the respective parties in the land sought to be partitioned, ordering partition thereof and appointing commissioners to make the same is interlocutory merely, and not final; but a decree in such a suit ordering a sale of the property by the commissioners based upon their report that partition cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners of the land, is final.”
Establishes the distinction between interlocutory decrees (adjudication and appointment) and final decrees (ordering sale) in partition suits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA partition suit involved real estate with multiple parties claiming interests. The trial court rendered a decree on May 26, 1911, adjudicating the pa…
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 is a proceeding for partition of real estate. A decree was rendered May 26, 1911, adjudicating the interests of the parties and appointing commissioners to make partition of the lands with directions that if they find that partition in kind cannot be made without manifest prejudice to the parties or to either of them, to report such findings to the court for its action thereon. The commisioners reported that owing to the situation of the land and the nature of the improvements thereon, partition in kind could not be made without prejudice to the parties. On this report a decree ordering a sale of the property for partition was rendered May 31st, 1911. On November 25th, 1911, the defendants took an appeal specifically from and limited to the decree of May 26, 1911.
A decree in a partition suit adjudicating the rights and interests of the respective parties in the land sought to be partitioned, ordering partition thereof and appointing commissioners to make the same is interlocutory merely, and not final; but a decree in such a suit' ordering a sale of the property by the commissioners based upon their report that partition cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners of the land, is final. Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 48 Fla. 226, 37 South. Rep. 722.
In this case a sale of the property for the purposes of partition was required and was actually made, therefore the decree of May 26, 1911, adjudicating the interests of the parties and appointing commissioners to make the partition or to report if a sale was necessary to an equitable partition, was an interlocutory decree, the decree of May 31, 1911, ordering a sale of the property for partition being the final decree in the cause.
An appeal in an equity cause, taken subsequently to the 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 duly taken from the final decree, the appeal taken from the interlocutory decree after the final decree was rendered should be dismissed.
The appeal will be dismissed.
Taylor, Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Lovett v. Lovett, 112 So. 768 (Fla. 1927)…e entry of appeal. However, they are so embraced in this ease. This question is squarely decided in Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 48 Fla. 226, 37 So. 722, and Jacksonville M. & R. Ry. Co. v. Bradley, 38 Fla. 139, 20 So. 821, and Banks v. Guinyard, 63 Fla. 334, 58 So. 229. This contention of appellees is, therefore, not well founded. We might call attention to the fact that the order of the chancellor, rendered November 25, 1925, confirming the report of sale, while probably intending to confirm the sale…
-
Mrs. J. D. Alderman v. Puritan Dairy, Inc., 145 Fla. 292 (Fla. 1940)…es some question in the case open for future judicial determination. See State ex rel. Everette v. Petteway, 131 Fla. 516, 179 So. 666; Heverle v. Rasmussen, 103 Fla. 76, 137 So. 259; Hirsch Co. v. Scott, 87 Fla. 336, 100 So. 157; Banks v. Guinyard, 63 Fla. 334, 58 So. 229; Johnson v. Johnson, 91 Fla. 275, 107 So. 342; State ex rel. Reynolds v. White, 40 Fla. 297, 24 So. 160; Owens v. Forbes’ Adm’rs, 9 Fla. 325; Bellamy v. Bellamy, 4 Fla. 242. A decree is not a final decree which does not dispose of the wh…
-
Cone v. Lottie K. Benjamin, 142 Fla. 604 (Fla. 1940)…es some question in the case open for future judicial determination. See State ex rel. Everette v. Petteway, 131 Fla. 516, 179 So. 666; Heverle v. Rasmussen, 103 Fla. 76, 137 So. 259; Hirsch Co. v. Scott, 87 Fla. 336, 100 So. 157; Banks v. Guinyard, 63 Fla. 334; 58 So. 329; Johnson v. Johnson, 91 Fla. 275, 107 So. 342; State ex rel. Reynolds v. White, 40 Fla. 297, 24 So. 160; Owens v. Forbes, 9 Fla. 325; Bellamy v. Bellamy, 4 Fla. 242. A decree is not a final decree which does not dispose of the whole matt…
Previewing 3 of 11 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)
- Stanley v. Standard Cypress Co., 54 Fla. 583 (Fla. 1907)