W. P. GIFFORD, APPELLANT,
v.
W. W. PLUMMER 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.
Gifford sought to cancel a master's deed executed to McGill following a foreclosure sale, and appealed the trial court's order denying his petition. The Florida Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because McGill, the purchaser at the master's sale, was not named as a party to the appeal.
The appeal must be dismissed because McGill, the purchaser at the master's sale, is a necessary party to any proceeding instituted to set aside or vacate the order of confirmation, and he was not made a party to this appeal nor did he voluntarily appear.
“The use of the Latin abbreviation 'et al.' in the entry of an appeal will not include anyone as a party to such appeal except those who are expressly and fully named as parties in such entry of appeal”
Establishes the strict requirement for naming parties in appeals
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGifford filed a bill in chancery against Plummer and others to enforce a mortgage lien. A final decree was rendered in Gifford's favor, and a special …
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.
“APPEAL BY W. P. GIFFORD, COMPLAINANT.
“Comes now -W. P. Gifford, complainant in the above entitled cause, with his solicitor and counsel' of -record, David Kaufman, and appeals and takes and enters and hereby gives notice of this his appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Florida, from that certain decree of said Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for Duval County, in Chancery, rendered on the 26th day of June, 1916, which said decree approved and confirmed the report of the Special Master reporting the sale o'f the mortgaged premises, and which said decree overruled and denied the. relief sought by the petition to set aside sale, filed herein on June 17th, 1916, and also denied the relief sought by the amended petition filed in this cause on June 20th; 1916.
- “This appeal is made returnable to the 22nd day of September, A. D. 1916.
“And the Clerk of the said Circuit Court is hereby required to record forthwith this appeal and this entry and notice of appeal in the Chancery Order Book of said Court in due accord with law.
“This the 27th day of June, A. D. 1916.
“David Kaufman,
“Solicitor and Counsel for W. P. Gifford.”
In Lowe v. DeLaney, 54 Fla. 480, 44 South. Rep. 710. we held: “The use of the Latin abbreviation ‘et al.’ in the entry of an appeal will not include anyone as a party to such appeal except those who are expressly and fully named as parties in such entry of appeal; and where the appeal is from a decree in partition all the parties to such decree must expressly and by name be made parties' to such appeal, otherwise such appeal will be dismissed for want of necessary parties.”
As we held in Macfarlane v. Macfarlane, 50 Fla. 570, 39 South. Rep. 995, the purchaser at a master’s sale to whom a deed has been executed and which sale has been confirmed, is a necessary party to any proceeding instituted to set aside or vacate the order of confirmation. It necessarily follows that McGill, the purchaser at the master’s sale, was and is a necessary party to this appeal. Not having been made such party and not having voluntarily appeared here, the appeal must be dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Guar. Title & Tr. Co. v. Thompson, 93 Fla. 983 (Fla. 1927)…ught to vacate the original order of confirmation, or to the proceedings subsequent thereto. Neither was said purchaser made a party to the appeal from the order of confirmation, nor has he voluntarily appeared in this court. In Gifford v. Plummer, 73 Fla. 1065, 75 South. Rep. 536, this court said: [*993] “The purchaser at a master’s sale of real estate to whom a deed has been executed and which sale has been confirmed, is a necessary party to any proceeding instituted to set aside or vacate the order of c…
-
Gibbs v. Ewing, 94 Fla. 236 (Fla. 1927)…proceedings; and that where he has not been made such a party, or has not voluntarily appeared in the appellate court, the appeal will be dismissed when the attention of the court is directed thereto by timely suggestion. Gifford v. Plummer et al., 73 Fla. 1065, 75 So. Rep. 536; Macfarlane v. Macfarlane, 50 Fla. 570, 39 So. 995; Armour Fertilizer Co. v. Wade Insurance Co., 105 So. 819; Poal v. Thomas, 112 So. Rep. 6171, 35 Cyc. 109; 3 C. J. 1014, et seq. Appellants seek to avoid this point upon the ground…
-
Walker Fertilizer Co., Inc. v. Race, 123 Fla. 84 (Fla. 1936)…by the statute of 1933 just cited. Where a necessary party to an appeal or writ of error has not been made such party, and. has not voluntarily appeared in the appellate court, the appeal or writ of error will he dismissed. See Gifford v. Plummer, 73 Fla. 1065, 75 Sou. Rep. 536; Bate v. Cook, 89 Fla. 40, 103 Sou. Rep. 126; Armour Fertilizer Works v. N. G. Wade Inv. Co., 90 Fla. 403, 105 Sou. Rep. 819. If all appellees or defendants in error are not included in the appeal or writ of error as recorded, the…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Macfarlane v. Macfarlane, 50 Fla. 570 (Fla. 1905)
- Lowe v. DeLaney, 54 Fla. 480 (Fla. 1907)