WILLIAM C. BURR, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE O. POWELL, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed an interlocutory order denying a motion to strike an amended answer in a mortgage foreclosure action. The court held that affirmative defenses based on the statute of limitations may be included in an amended answer in equity, and that successive pleas restrictions do not apply to such affirmative defenses.
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to strike. Affirmative defenses in an answer, including those based on the statute of limitations, may be amended like other pleadings and are not subject to the restrictions on successive pleas that apply when a defendant seeks to avoid an answer by plea.
“The rules invoked apply when the defendant seeks to avoid an, answer by pléa, but not to affirmative defenses in an answer, as to which the court may allow amendments as in other pleadings.”
Establishes the key distinction that successive plea restrictions do not apply to affirmative defenses within an answer
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a bill to enforce a mortgage lien, the defendant's original answer was full on the merits but exceptions were sustained to portions asserting a sta…
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 Interlocutory Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
— This appeal is from an interlocutory order, refusing to strike an amended answer to a bill to enforce a mortgage lien. The original answer is full, in so far as it makes an issue upon the allegations of the bill, but exceptions were sustained to portions of the answer wherein a defense founded upon the statute of limitations was set up, and also a plea along the same line was overruled, leave being given to amend the answer. In what is termed an “amended and separate answer’’ in the introductory part and concluding this defendant having herein and heretofore fully answered defenses on various statutes of limitations are urged. The motion to strike this pleading is based upon the conception that the defenses are in fact three separate pleas, without verification or certificate, and that successive pleas in equity are inhibited. The motion was properly denied.
The rules invoked apply when the defendant seeks to avoid an, answer by pléa, but not to affirmative defenses in an answer, as to which the court may allow amend ments as in other pleadings. We are unable to consider tbe cross-assignments, as they all relate to orders of the Circuit Court, which have not been brought here for review. We have frequently held that an appeal from an interlocutory order, unlike an appeal from a final decree, brings up for review the order or orders named in the appeal and nothing more; that this must be so by force of the language of the statute, and our rule permitting cross-assignments without the necessity of a separate appeal must be read in the light of that higher law. The ruling must be properly before the appellate court, else it may not consider whether the ruling be correct.
The order is affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford and Hockbr, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City of Palmetto v. Lucretia A. Katsch and W. A. Katsch, 86 Fla. 506 (Fla. 1923)…not well founded, as this .court has repeatedly held that while an appeal from an interlocutory order brings up nothing but the specified order, yet an appeal from a final decree brings up all interlocutory orders for consideration. Burr v. Powell, 63 Fla. 379, 58 South. Rep. 29; McCall v. Lee, 66 Fla. 14, 62 South. Rep. 902. Appellant assigns several grounds of error, but they may all be resolved into two primary questions to be answered by this court, viz: (1) At or prior to the time the assessments in…
-
McEwen v. Growers Loan & Guar. Co., 116 Fla. 540 (Fla. 1934)…e to an entirety different interlocutory order from the one appealed to this Court in the present case. “Upon an appeal from one interlocutory order, cross assignments of error upon other interlocutory orders will not be considered.” Burr v. Powell, 63 Fla. 379, 58 Sou. Rep. 29. Upon an appeal from one interlocutory order in order to entitle the appellee to insist upon and present cross assignments of error upon other interlocutory orders, it is necessary that the appellee enter a cross appeal in the case…
-
Pingree v. DeHaven, 90 Fla. 42 (Fla. 1925)…l decree, the decree overruling the demurrer was interlocutory, and it is well settled that appeals from final decrees bring up for consideration of this court the propriety of all decrees made prior to the entry of the final decree. Burr v. Powell, 63 Fla. 379, 58 South. Rep. 29; McCall v. Lee, 66 Fla. 14, 62 South. Rep. 902. This rul.e also applies to appeals based on decree pro confesso. Betton v. Williams, 4 Fla. 11; DeCottes v. Jeffers, 7 Fla. 284; See. 3169, Rev. Gen. Stats. Fla. 1920. The final dec…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence