M. M. MORGAN, APPELLANT,
v.
FORD HOWELL, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed an order extending the time for testimony in a quiet title action, holding that only the specifically appealed order could be reviewed and that no abuse of discretion was shown.
No, an appellate court can only consider the specific interlocutory order that is appealed from. Errors assigned on other interlocutory orders not specifically appealed from will not be considered.
“Where the appeal is not from a final decree but only from an interlocutory order or decree, errors assigned on other interlocutory orders not specifically appealed from will not be considered by the appellate court.”
Establishes the principle that only the appealed order is subject to review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a suit to quiet title, the trial court initially enlarged the time for taking testimony and later appointed a new master. The appeal was taken only…
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 Appellate Review Of Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
In a suit to quiet title to real estate, the court on June 1, 1916, enlarged the time for taking testimony. On August 22, 1916, the court appointed another master to take the testimony in lieu of the one previously appointed. An appeal was taken from the last order only. Errors are assigned on several other alleged rulings, none of which appear in the transcript except that of June 1, 1916, above mentioned.
Where the appeal is not from a final decree but only from an interlocutory order or decree, errors assigned on other interlocutory orders not specifically appealed from will not be considered by the appellate court. Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496, 50 South. Rep. 867; McCall v. Lee, 66 Fla. 14, 62 South. Rep. 902.
Orders enlarging the time for taking testimony in equity causes are within the sound discretion of the judge, when special cause is shown; and unless abuse of such discretion appears the appellate court will not interfere. Braxton v. Lidden, 55 Fla. 785, 46 South. Rep. 324.
As this court can consider only the interlocutory order that alone is appealed from and as no abuse of judicial discretion is shown in the order extending the time for taking testimony, the order appealed from is affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Glass v. Layton, 140 Fla. 522 (Fla. 1937)…ry order or decree, errors assigned on other interlocutory orders not specifically appealed from will not be considered by the appellate court.” Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496 (H. N. 10), 50 So. 857, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 577. See also Morgan v. Howell, 74 Fla. 334, 76 So. 869; Bostwick v. Van Sant, 98 Fla. 565, 124 So. 14; City of Miami v. Miami Realty, Loan & Guaranty Co., 57 Fla. 366, 49 So. 55; Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 48 Fla. 226, 37 So. 722; 111 Am. St. Repts. 77; Wiggins v. Williams, 36 Fla. 637,…
-
Bostwick v. Van Sant, 98 Fla. 565 (Fla. 1929)…nes specified are appealed from the appellate court will be confined to the orders mentioned in the appeal. See Miami v. Miami Realty, Loan & Guaranty Co., 57 Fla. 366, 49 So. R. 55; Wiggins v. Williams, 36 Fla. 637, 18 So. R. 859; Morgan v. Howell, 74 Fla. 334, 76 So. R. 869; Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496, 50 So. R. 867; McCall v. Lee, 66 Fla. 14, 62 So. R. 902; Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 48 Fla. 226, 37 So. R. 722. We will consider therefore only such assignments of error as attack the order of Janua…
Authorities Cited
- Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1909)
- McCall v. Lee, 66 Fla. 14 (Fla. 1913)
- Braxton v. Liddon, 55 Fla. 785 (Fla. 1908)