DAVID F. MITCHELL, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
HARRY MASON, 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 denied an application to annul foreclosure sale proceedings allegedly conducted in violation of a supersedeas order. The Court held that no valid supersedeas bond was ever created because the Circuit Judge lacked authority to fix the bond's amount and conditions outside the thirty-day statutory window following the foreclosure decree.
The application to annul the proceedings was denied because no valid supersedeas order existed. A circuit judge has authority to fix supersedeas bond amounts and conditions only within thirty days of the decree's recordation; outside that period, only the Supreme Court or a Justice thereof may authorize supersedeas. Since the bond order was made on January 1, 1912, thirty-one days after the December 1, 1911 decree, it was void and could not be violated.
“In obtaining supersedeas orders in this class of cases the function of the Circuit Judge is to fix the amount and condition of the supersedeas bond. If this is done within thirty days after the decree is rendered and recorded, the bond executed, approved and filed within that time, operates as a supersedeas under the statute.”
Establishes the circuit judge's limited statutory function and the thirty-day requirement for valid supersedeas bonds
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final foreclosure decree was rendered and recorded on December 1, 1911. Property was advertised for sale beginning December 4, 1911. An appeal was t…
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 Appeal Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
— This is an application for an order to annul the proceedings taken under a foreclosure decree alleged to have been had in violation of an alleged supersedeas order, and for a rule against those alleged to have violated the alleged supersedeas order. It appears that a final decree in the foreclosure of a mortgage was rendered and recorded in the Circuit Court for Duval County on December 1st, 1911; that the property was, beginning with December 4th, 1911, advertised for sale; that from December 23rd, 1911, to 5 P.
M. January 1st, 1912, the judge was not at his office or his home and his whereabouts could not be ascertained as he was on a hunting trip, though he was within his Circuit; that on December 28th, 1911, an appeal from the foreclosure decree was taken by the defendant; and an application was filed for an order to fix the amount and condition of the supersedeas bond under the statute; that in the absence of the judge, an order was made on January 1st, 1912, by the judge of another Circuit fixing the amount and condition of the supersedeas bond and approving the bond; that after notice of this order was communicated to the master he made the sale on the same day, and the sale was on January 2nd, 1912, confirmed by the judge who rendered the foreclosure decree; and that a conveyance of the property was then made by-the master appointed for that purpose. In obtaining supersedeas orders in this class of cases the function of the Circuit Judge is to fix the amount and condition of the supersedeas bond. If this is done within thirty days after the decree is rendered and recorded, the bond executed, approved and filed within that time, operates as a supersedeas under the statute. If the order fixing the amount and condition of the bond is not made and the bond is not approved and filed within thirty days after the rendition and record of the decree there can be no supersedeas unless an order therefor is made by the Supreme Court or a Justice of the Supreme Court, and such order is made effective in the manner proAdded by Iuav. See Secs. 1701, 1909, Gen. Stats. 1906; International Kaolin Co. v. Vause, 60 Fla. 324, 53 South. Rep. 644.
In this case no supersedeas order was made by a Justice of this court, and the Circuit Judge had no authority to fix the amount and condition of a supersedeas bond on January 1st, 1912, which was not within thirty days after December 1st, 1911, on which date the decree appealed from was rendered and recorded.
A bond not approved and filed within thirty days after the date of the record of the decree did not operate as a supersedeas in the absence of an order by this Court or a Justice thereof. As the appeal had been entered, the cause was pending in this court and the Circuit Judge apparently did not make an order staying the execution of the decree appealed from, as contradistinguished from a supersedeas.
As there was no valid supersedeas order to be violated, the application is denied.-
Whitfield, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitchell v. Mason, 65 Fla. 208 (Fla. 1913)
-
Mitchell v. Mason, 75 Fla. 679 (Fla. 1918)…ll from an order on his application to annul the • proceedings taken under the foreclosure decree alleged to have been in violation of the supersedeas order, this court held the order to be void, so the application was denied. See Mitchell v. Mason, 63 Fla. 538, 57 South. Rep. 604. But the point presented here is: Granting the supersedeas order to have been void, was the property sold for an inadequate price to the advantage of the complainant and to the disadvantage of the defendants, because of the impr…
-
Banning v. Brown, 73 Fla. 54 (Fla. 1917)…If this contention is sound, a Special Master may adjudicate any and all questions which may arise on an appeal, on which a supersedeas may be attacked. Respondent bases his right to so determine these questions on the decision in Mitchell v. Mason, 63 Fla. 538, 57 South. Rep. 604. [*58] The case does not support his contention. In that. case the decree was entered and' recorded on December i, 1911. The sale'took place .on January ist, 1912, the day after the expiration of the thirty days within which the…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Int'l Kaolin Co. v. Vause, 60 Fla. 324 (Fla. 1910)