J. T. STEWART, APPELLANT,
v.
JULIA A. HUNTER 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.
In a partition suit, the trial court refused to confirm a sale of lands to J.T. Stewart for $600 and ordered a re-sale, which resulted in Stewart purchasing the same lands for $1,055. Stewart appealed the refusal to confirm the first sale and denial of his petition for rehearing. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that confirmation of sales in partition proceedings rests within the trial court's sound judicial discretion and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion.
The court held that each of Stewart's assignments of error was without merit. The confirmation of sales in partition proceedings rests within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court will not interfere except where abuse of discretion is demonstrated. The fact that Stewart himself bid $1,055 at the second sale conclusively shows the court wisely exercised its discretion in refusing to confirm the first sale.
“the confirmation of the sale was a matter which rested within the sound judicial discretion of the court”
Establishes that confirmation of partition sales is committed to trial court discretion
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 lands that commissioners determined could not be partitioned without prejudice to the owners. The court ordered a public sal…
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 Standard Of Review On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Shackleford, C. J.
This is a suit for the partition of certain described lands, in which a decree was rendered, appointing commissioners to make a partition thereof between the complainants and defendants, in accordance with their respective interests as set forth in the decree.
The commissioners made a report to the effect that the lands were so situated that a partition thereof could not be made without great prejudice to the owners thereof, whereupon the court made an order directing a sale of the lands by the commissioners at public auction. The commissioners made a report to the effect that they had sold such lands, after duly advertising the sale, to J.
T. Stewart for the sum of $600.00. The court refused to confirm such sale and ordered the commissioners to re-advertise and re-sell the lands.
J. T. Stewart, the purchaser at the sale and who was also one of the defendants, filed a petition for re-hearing, which was denied. The commissioners made another report to the court to the effect that they'had re-advirtised and re-sold the lands, which second sale resulted in the same being sold to J.
T. Stewart for the sum of $1055.00, which amount had been paid •into the registry of the court. On the same day that this report was filed and before action was taken thereon, J.
T. Stewart entered his appeal from the orders refusing to confirm the first sale and denying his petition for a rehearing, and assigns each order as error. We are of the opinion that each assignment is without merit. At the time of making the order for the first sale the court had before it affidavits to the effect that the lands were worth from $1200.00 to' $2000.00. The confirmation of the sale was a matter which rested within the sound judicial discretion of the court. See 30 Cyc. 991; 15 Ency. Pl & Pr. 822, and the authorities cited in the respective notes.
' We said in Padgett v. State, 64 Fla. 389, 59 South. Rep; 946, text 950, that, as a general rule, in matters which rest within the judicial discretion of the trial court, an .appellate court will not interfere except where an abuse ¡of such discretion is made to appear. We added that we thought that this was a salutary rule which would con-due'e-to-the administration of justice. The fact that the appellant himself bid $1055.00 for the lands at the second sale conclusively shows that the court wisely exercised its discretion in refusing to confirm the first sale.
Orders affirmed.
Tavlor, Cockrell and Whitfield, J. J., concur. Hocker, J., absent, concurred in the opinion as prepared.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O'Malley v. McMULLEN, 294 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…ating Final Judgment is affirmed. McNULTY, A. C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur. . See Phillips v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins. Co., 1936, 124 Fla. 179, 168 So. 34; 47 Am. Jur.2d, Judgments § 1085. . Fla.Stat., § 64.071, F.S.A. . Stewart v. Hunter, 1913, 65 Fla. 325, 61 So. 623. . See Smith v. One Super Wild Cat Console Mach. 1232, 973P, 1971, 6 Or.App. 482, 488 P. 2d 847; Orban v. Stelle, 1940, 292 Mich. 341, 290 N.W. 821. .This point was rendered moot because once the sale was set aside both parties concurr…
-
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Hawthorne Flying Serv., 63 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1953)….C., 10 F.R.D. 363. In order to prevail here, Lloyd’s must show that this discretionary power was clearly abused—and that Lloyd’s suffered thereby. Carter v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., supra; Bowers v. Bixler, 73 Fla. 692, 75 So. 751; Stewart v. Hunter, 65 Fla. 325, 61 So. 623; Sherlock v. Varn, 64 Fla. 447, 59 So. 953. Lloyd’s urges that to allow the jury to speculate on the question of the amount of damage when positive evidence would have been available after inspection was clearly erroneous and injurious…
Authorities Cited
- Padgett v. State, 64 Fla. 389 (Fla. 1912)