R. W. GILES, W. H. BROWN, ARTHUR E. DONEGAN, J. H. WOODALL AND H. T. SMITH, APPELLANTS,
v.
E. H. GARLAND AND E. O. GARLAND, 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 affirmed an interlocutory order from the Circuit Court, finding no errors in the lower court's decision. The court ordered the appellants to pay costs to the appellees.
The Florida Supreme Court held that there were no errors in the interlocutory order of the Circuit Court.
“This cause having been submitted to the court at a former day of this term upon the transcript of the record of the Interlocutory Order aforesaid, and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said Interlocutory Order”
Describes the procedural posture and the court's initial assessment of the case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved an appeal by R. W. Giles and others (appellants) against an interlocutory order issued by the Circuit Court, with E. H. Garland and …
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 Award Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This cause having been submitted to the court at a former day of this term upon the transcript of the record of the Interlocutory Order aforesaid, and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said Interlocutory Order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the said Interlocutory Order of the Circuit Court be and the same is hereby affirmed; and it is further ordered by the court that the appellees do have and recover of and from the appellants their costs by them in this behalf expended, which costs are taxed at the sum of $.............., all of which is ordered to be certified fi> the court below.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (45 total)
-
Farrington v. Harrison, 95 Fla. 769 (Fla. 1928)…where such findings are made in a cause where the testimony was not taken before the chancellor, yet in either case the chancellor’s findings should not be disturbed by an Appellate Court unless shown to be clearly erroneous. Sandlin v. Hunter Co., 70 Fla. 514, 70 South. Rep. 553; Travis v. Travis, 81 Fla. 309, 87 South. Rep. 762; Lucas v. Wade, 43 Fla. 419, 31 South. Rep. 23. On the other hand, where a decree is manifestly against the weight of the evidence or contrary to and unsupported by the legal ef…
-
In re Est. of Mary A. Donnelly v. Ashby, 137 Fla. 459 (Fla. 1934)…olely on questions of fact will not be disturbed unless' clearly erroneous. See: Fiser v. Willard, 60 Fla. 395, 53 So. 501; Powell v. Powell, 77 Fla. 181, 81 So. 105; Whidden v. Rogers, 78 Fla. 93, 82 So. 611; Sandlin v. Hunter Company, 70 Fla. 514, 70 So. 553. It is strongly argued here that Miss Donnelly at the time of making her will was bitter toward the “Ashby tribe.” She had been made a party to the suit by the Ashby children in their effort to force Gold to release and surrender some-’ thing like…1 / 2
-
The Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Tharpe, 130 Fla. 546 (Fla. 1938)…where such findings are made in a cause where the testimony was not taken before the chancellor, yet in either case the chancellor’s findings should not be disturbed by an Appellate Court unless shown to be clearly erroneous. Sandlin v. Hunter Co., 70 Fla. 514, 70 South. Rep. 553; Travis v. Travis, 81 Fla. 309, 87 South. Rep. 762; Lucas v. Wade, 43 Fla. 419, 31 South. Rep. 23. “On the other hand, where a decree is manifestly against the weight of the evidence or contrary to and unsupported [*558] by the…
Previewing 3 of 45 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence