LEONARD BELL, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK BELL, ALLEN BELL, FANNIE BELL MATHIS AND POMP MATHIS, HER HUSBAND, 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 reversed and remanded a partition of real estate case due to conflicting evidence regarding an appellee's authorization for legal representation. The court found it necessary to clarify the appellee's involvement before proceeding.
The court held that due to the conflicting evidence regarding the appellee's authorization, the orders and decrees should be reversed and the cause remanded.
“In view of the peculiar facts of the case, the court is of the opinion that the orders and decrees appealed from should be reversed and the cause remanded for such proceedings by the trial court as may be appropriate in the premises.”
This quote establishes the court's decision to reverse and remand the case due to the unusual circumstances.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn appeal was taken from orders adjudicating a partition of real estate. One appellee, who lived in South Carolina, claimed to have no knowledge of 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 Partition Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
An appeal was taken by the defendant below from orders and decrees that resulted in adjudicating a partition of real estate. In this court a petition is presented praying for a dismissal of one of the appellees as a party complainant in the lower court, or for the reversal of the decrees with directions to the lower court to dismiss the petitioner as a party complainant in the court below.
The petition is signed in the petitioner’s name by “his-mark” without witnesses, and is sworn to before a notary public. It contains a statement by the petitioner that “I knew nothing of any such case as this and gave nobody authority to represent me in this case.” In opposition to this is an agreement signed in the petitioner’s name with two witnesses employing counsel to conduct this litigation.
The petitioner who was named as one of the complainants in the court below, lives in South Carolina. He claims to have known nothing of the suit in the court below. Counsel for complainants below, appellees here, received their authority to institute the suit from attorneys in South Carolina who had what purports to be a contract of employment with the petitioner to conduct the litigation.
In view of the peculiar facts of the case, the court is of the opinion that the orders and decrees appealed from should be reversed and the cause remanded for such proceedings by the trial court as may be appropriate in the premises. It is so ordered.
West, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Browne and Terrell, J. J., concur.
On Petition for Rehearing
Per Curiam.
It is manifest from the opinion that the only matter considered here was whether on the showing made by one of the complainants in the court below and an appellee here, was. entitled to a hearing as to whether he had authorized the suit to be brought in his name in the trial court; and this court reversed the decrees appealed from in order that the trial court upon proper procedure might determine whether the party making objection had authorized suit to be brought in his name as one of the complainants in the court below. When the stated question is determined by the chancellor, he will of course make appropriate orders and decrees upon the merits o£ the controversy.
Rehearing denied.
West, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Bbowne and Tee-bell, J. J., concur.