D. S. LOVETT AND H. W. LOVETT, APPELLANTS,
v.
C. C. LOVETT, MRS. EUNICE BURNETT, JR., MRS. JULIA BRAGDON, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, B. BRAGDON, AND MRS. H. B. NEEL, A WIDOW, 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.
This case involves an appeal from decrees granting writs of assistance related to a partition sale. The court reversed the lower court's decrees, aligning with the appellees' request for reversal to allow for a complete relitigation of the partition suit.
Yes, the decrees granting the writs of assistance are reversed. The court agreed that the impossibility of curing errors in the partition suit necessitates the reversal of the related writs of assistance decrees.
“unless the errors pointed out should be cured by the action of the infant defendants within 90 days from the going down of the mandate, the decrees appealed from should stand reversed.”
This quote establishes the condition under which the prior partition decrees would be reversed, setting the stage for the current appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants appealed from two decrees granting writs of assistance to purchasers of land sold in a partition proceeding. This court had previously revi…
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 Writ Of Assistance cases and more on FLexlaw
Brown, J.
This appeal was prosecuted from two decrees according to writs of assistance against appellants in behalf of the purchasers of certain lands at a sale held under a decree for the sale of said lands renderd in a partition proceeding, between the same parties, which decree of sale was under review by this Court in the case of Lovett et al. v. Lovett et al., decided on March 29th, during the January term, A. Í). 1927, of this Court. See 112 So.
768. In that case, we reached the conclusion, and so ordered, that, unless the errors pointed out should be cured by the action of the infant defendants within 90 days from the going down of the mandate, the decrees appealed from should stand reversed. Such possible curative proceedings by said infant defendants was made conditional upon their having reached the age of twenty-one years or having had their disabilities of non-age lawfully removed during such ninety-day period. By petition filed herein by appellees, it is said that it is impossible for them to cure the errors pointed out in said opinion in the partition suit, and that therefore the decrees appealed from therein will have to stand reversed as ordered by this Court, which will necessarily require the reversal of this cause involving the writs of assistance also. The appellees, in whose behalf the decretal writs of assistance were granted, therefore pray the reversal of such decrees so appealed from, in order that the court below may have full and complete power and jurisdiction to deal with all matters involved in both causes, upon a relitigation of the subject matter between the parties.
As the appellants are, in the cause now before the Court, seeking a reversal of the decrees awarding writs of assistance, and as the appellees now also pray a reversal, and the reasons above referred to appearing sufficient, it is ordered that the orders and decrees appealed from in this cause be and the same are hereby reversed.
Reversed.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.