JOHN R. WILLIAMS, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
H. M. BLACK, 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.
In this appeal of an interlocutory order overruling a demurrer to an amended bill in chancery, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling, holding that the demurrer was properly overruled and that defendants must be allowed to file a plea or answer.
The court affirmed the order overruling the demurrer, holding that no reversible error appeared in the interlocutory order. The court lacked jurisdiction to review the first interlocutory order (entered February 26, 1915) because more than six months had elapsed before the appeal was taken on May 8, 1916, but could review the second order (entered April 14, 1916) which was taken within six months.
“An appeal from interlocutory decrees, some of which were entered more than six months prior to' the entry of appeal, will entitle the appellant to have reviewed the propriety of the decrees entered within six months prior to the entry of appeal, but not those entered more than six months prior to the entry of appeal.”
Establishes the court's jurisdictional rule for reviewing interlocutory orders on appeal, limiting review to orders within six months of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceH. M. Black filed a bill in chancery against John R. Williams and Pineapple Orange Company on May 8, 1914. Defendants demurred on July 4, 1914, and 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 Timeliness Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
On the 8th day of May, 1914, H.
M. Black filed his bill in chancery against John R. Williams and Pineapple Orange Company, a corporation. To this bill the defendants interposed a demurrer on the 4th day of July, 1914, upon 'which the court made an order on the 26th day of February, 1915, overruling the same and granting-the defendants until the Rule day in April in which to file such other and further pleadings as they may be advised. On the 13th day of July, 1915» the complainant, 113? leave of court, filed his amended 'bill, to which on the 6th day of September; 1915, the defendants again interposed a demurrer, which was overruled by the court in an order dated the 14th day of April, 1916, in which the defendants were allowed until the Rule day in May to file plea or answer. O11 the 8th day of May, 1916, the defendants entered their appeal from each of these interlocutory orders, the first of such orders being entered the 26th day of February, 1915* and the second being entered the 14th day of April, 1916. As we have several times held: “An appeal from interlocutory decrees, some of which were entered more than six months prior to' the entry of appeal, will entitle the appellant to have reviewed the propriety of the decrees entered within six months prior to the entry of appeal, but not those entered more than six months prior to the entry of appeal.” Futch v. Adams, 47 Fla. 257, 36 South. Rep.
575. Also see Mitchell v. Mason, 61 Fla. 692, 55 South. Rep. 387, and Charlotte Harbor & Northern Ry. Co. v. Lancaster, 70 Fla. 200, 69 South. Rep.
720. Under the holding in these cited cases, we cannot review the propriety of the first of such interlocutory orders, as more than six months had elapsed since the entry thereof when the appeal was taken.
We have carefully read the amended bill, with the several exhibits attached thereto, also the demurrer, with its numerous grounds, which the defendants interposed, as well as the briefs filed by the counsej for the respective parties. We do not consider it necessary or advisable to set out either the amended bill or the grounds of the demurrer. It is sufficient to sajr that no reversible érror has been made to appear to us in this interlocutory order from which the appeal is entered. As we held in Tampa and Jacksonville Ry. Co. v. Harrison, 55 Fla. 810, 46 South. Rep. 592, “Upon an appeal from an interlocutory order, the court will not consider whether the prayers of the bill are too' broad, provided only it prays for something that is proper and consequent.”
The order appealed from will be affirmed, with leave to defendants to file a plea or answer, within a period to be fixed by the Circuit Judge.
Order affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Olive H. Johnson v. Benbow, 93 Fla. 124 (Fla. 1927)…on the general demurrer to the bill of complaint. We have repeatedly held that a general demurrer to a bill of complaint should be overruled, if there is any equity in the bill. Warren v. Warren, 66 Fla. 138, 63 South. Rep. 726; Williams v. Black, 73 Fla. 309, 74 South. Rep. 312; West Palm Beach v. Ryder, 73 Fla. 558, 74 South. Rep. 603; Prince v. Mahin, 73 Fla. 525, 74 South. Rep. 696; Carlton v. Hilliard, 64 Fla. 228, 60 South. Rep. 222. Under the first “part” of the demurrer we shall, therefore, cons…
-
Edmundson v. Edmundson, 133 Fla. 703 (Fla. 1938)…by the entry of appeal taken August 26, 1937. But as there has been no final decree in the cause and the order of September 15, 1936, was entered more than six months before the appeal from it was taken, the appeal is ineffectual. Williams v. Block, 73 Fla. 309, 74 So. 312. But the appeal operates as an appearance in the cause. On October 21, 1936, a rule was issued to the defendant [*707] to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt of the court for not paying the amounts awarded against him S…
-
Tippins v. Belle Mead Dev. Corp., 136 Fla. 373 (Fla. 1935)…n six months after the entry of the order appointing the Receiver. Determination of the question raised by this first assignment of error is controlled by Section 4960-4962, C. G. L. 1927. Futch v. Adams, 47 Fla. 257, 36 Sou. 575; Williams v. Black, 73 Fla. 309, 74 Sou. 312; Lovett v. Lovett, 93 Fla. 611, 112 Sou. 768; Priest v. Hogan, 85 Fla. 457, 96 Sou. 408; Mitchell v. Mason, 61 Fla. 692, 55 Sou. 387; Reed v. Cromer, 86 Fla. 390, 98 Sou. 329. There was no order superseding the interlocutory order of Se…
Authorities Cited
- Futch v. Adams, 47 Fla. 257 (Fla. 1904)
- Mitchell v. Mason, 61 Fla. 692 (Fla. 1911)
- Harbor v. Lancaster, 70 Fla. 200 (Fla. 1915)
- Tampa & Jacksonville Ry. Co. v. Robert D. Harrison for Creditors of William H. Jones, 55 Fla. 810 (Fla. 1908)