ALDA AYERS, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
LINTON DANIELS, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court dismissed an appeal for failure to comply with statutory requirements governing the timing and procedure for taking appeals in chancery cases. The appellants failed to timely perfect their appeal within six months of the decree and failed to make it returnable within the statutorily mandated timeframe.
The appeal must be dismissed because it was taken and entered in violation of statutory requirements: it was filed more than six months after the decree and was made returnable in violation of the statutory timeframe for returns. Appeals in chancery are matters of right and do not require court permission to appeal.
“Appeals in Chancery whether from final decrees or from interlocutory orders or decrees, must be taken within six months after the entry of the order or decree appealed from.”
Establishes the six-month deadline for taking chancery appeals under Florida statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA decree was entered on July 28, 1913. On October 30, 1913, the trial court issued an order granting appellants the right to appeal. The appellants th…
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 Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This cause being reached in regular order on the docket, it appears that the appeal was taken and entered on February 23, 1914, from a “decree made and entered on the 28th day of July, A. D. 1913, also an order of the court dated 30th October, 1913, granting the right to appeal.” The .statute provides, without exception, that “Appeals in Chancery whether from final decrees or from interlocutory orders or decrees, must be taken within six months after the entry of the order or decree appealed from.” Sec. 1907 Gen. Stats, of 1906. Appeals should be made returnable “more than thirty days and not more than ninety days from the date of the writ.” Chapter 5638, Acts of 1907, Section 1912 Gen. Stats. of 1906; Spencer v. Travelers’ Ins. Co., 39 Fla. 677, 23 South. Rep. 442; Parker v. Evening News Pub. Co., 54 Fla. 482, 44 South. Rep. 718; Griffith v. Henderson, 52 Fla. 507, 42 South. Rep. 705; Ates v. Langley, 61 Fla. 504, 54 South. Rep.
264. The “order of the court dated 30th October, 1913, granting the right to appeal,” was made at the instance of the appellants and is not an appealable order since “appeals in chancery shall be matters of right.” Sec. 1906 Gen. Stats. The appeal was taken and entered more than six months after the entry of the decree of July 28, 1913, appealed from; and the appeal made and entered February 23, 1914, is made returnable “to the Supreme Court of Florida at its January Term, 1914, commencing on the second Tuesday in January, A. D. 1914.” The appellee has not appeared in this court. As the entry of appeal is taken and entered and made returnable in violation of the statute, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S. Atl. S.S. Co. of Del. v. Sumpter Tutson and Katie May Tutson, 139 Fla. 405 (Fla. 1939)…more than ninety days from the date of the judgment of the circuit court which was rendered September 27, 1938, this Court did not acquire appellate jurisdiction of the cause, and the appeal being legally ineffectual, is dismissed. Ayers v. Daniels, 67 Fla. 482, 65 So. 660. It is so ordered. Terrell, C. J., and Brown, Buford Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur. Brown, J., concurs specially.…
-
McJunkins v. Stevens, 88 Fla. 559 (Fla. 1925)…is the entry of the appeal fatally defective as in State ex rel. Andreu v. Canfield, 40 Fla. [*567] 36, 23 South. Rep. 591, or made returnable in violation of the statute as in DeBogory v. Hafleigh, 81 Fla. 631, 88 South. Rep. 470; Ayers v. Daniels, 67 Fla. 482, 65 South. Rep. 660; Read v. Cromer, 86 Fla. 390, 98 South. Rep. 329; but the entry of appeal is properly returnable and contains in its caption as appellants the two defendants in the trial Court and as appellee the sole plaintiff in the trial Cour…1 / 2
-
Edulia Smith Price and Bayard R. Price v. Horton, 76 Fla. 537 (Fla. 1918)…o the procurement, return day and effect of writs of error applies also to appeals in equity causes (Spencer v. Travelers’ Ins. Co., 39 Fla. 677, 23 South. Rep. 442; Parker v. Evening News Pub. Co., 54 Fla. 482, 44 South. Rep. 718; Ayers v. Daniels, 67 Fla. 482, 65 South. Rep. 660), but these authorities give little assistance here, with respect to the form and contents of an entry of appeal, because this precise question was not presented in such cases. The rule on the subject is laid down in 3 C. J. 122…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Parker v. The Evening News Publ'g Co., 54 Fla. 482 (Fla. 1907)
- Spencer v. The Travelers' Ins. Co., 39 Fla. 677 (Fla. 1897)
- Griffith v. Henderson, 52 Fla. 507 (Fla. 1906)
- Ates v. Langley, 61 Fla. 504 (Fla. 1911)