W. G. TILGHMAN, AS SURVIVING PARTNER OF N. J. TILGHMAN AND SONS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
C. E. MELTON, TRADING AND DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF MELTON LUMBER COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 a lower court's decision to dissolve an attachment, holding that the appeal could not be reviewed due to an incomplete record. This prevented the plaintiff from pursuing sureties on a forthcoming bond.
No, the appellate court could not review the trial court's decision to dissolve the attachment because the necessary grounds and supporting evidence were missing from the record.
“on motion of defendant, after argument of attorneys for respective parties and due consideration of same, it was ordered by the Court, that the attachment issued in this cause be and the same is hereby dissolved and dismissed.”
describes the lower court's action that was appealed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff W. G. Tilghman sued C. E. Melton, initiating an action of assumpsit with an ancillary attachment. The defendant filed a forthcoming bond. 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 Forthcoming Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
—This was an action of assumpsit with ancillary attachment. A forthcoming bond was filed. At • the trial the record shows that “on motion of defendant, after argument of attorneys for respective parties and due consideration of same, it was ordered by the Court, that the attachment issued in this cause be and the same is hereby dissolved and dismissed.” There was judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant, and the plaintiff took writ of error. The contention here is that the Court erred in dissolving the attachment, which prevented the plaintiff from taking judgment against the sureties on the forthcoming bond.
As the grounds of the motion to dissolve the attachment and the matters in support thereof and the action of the Court thereon, except as stated above, do not appear in the transcript, the action of the Court in dissolving the attachment cannot be reviewed, and the judgment is affirmed.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tilghman v. The United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 90 Fla. 282 (Fla. 1925)…ch was taken in attachment. That judgment was affirmed by this Court in 1916 and the order dissolving the attachment, which was made by the 'trial court at the same time the judgment was entered, was not reviewed. See Tilghman v. Melton Lumber Co., 72 Fla. 36, 72 South. Rep. 369. The execution which was issued on the judgment is in the [*285] hands of the sheriff unsatisfied and the defendant in this case, The United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, has not produced the property attached to abide the…