LEO J. COYLE AND ANN N. COYLE, HIS WIFE, AND PHILIP HANICK, ALSO KNOWN AS PHILIP HENICK, AND JANE HANICK, HIS WIFE (NAME JANE FICTITIOUS ; REAL FIRST NAME UNKNOWN TO COMPLAINANT), APPELLANTS,
v.
S. BOBO DEAN CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
This case addresses the scope and effect of a supersedeas bond granted on appeal from an interlocutory order appointing a receiver in a mortgage foreclosure action. The Florida Supreme Court held that a supersedeas from an order appointing a receiver only suspends the receiver's functioning, not the underlying foreclosure proceedings.
A supersedeas from an order appointing a receiver operates only to prevent the receiver's functioning and suspends the effect of the receivership order, but does not stay the underlying foreclosure proceedings. The $2,000 bond was adequate to protect the complainant from any loss resulting from the suspension of the receiver, so the motion to increase the bond was denied.
“The supersedeas on appeal from the order appointing the receiver under the facts above stated will not be held to stay the proceedings of the suit in the court below, but only operates to prevent the functioning of a receiver and suspends the effect of the order appointing the receiver until disposition of the appeal in this Court”
Establishes the limited scope of a supersedeas on a receivership order—it does not stay the underlying action but only suspends the receiver's operation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA mortgage foreclosure suit was filed on June 30, 1927. On August 4, 1927, the trial court appointed a receiver over the mortgaged property to collect…
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 Supersedeas cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In this case suit was brought to foreclose a mortgage, the bill being filed on June 30th, 1927. On July 13th, 1927, notice of application for a receiver in aid of foreclosure was filed. On August 4th, 1927, an order was made appointing a receiver of the property-described in the mortgage, together with all the rents, income and profits thereof. The receiver was required to take possession of the property and collect the rents, income and profits therefrom and take hold and manage the property during the pendency of the action subject to the further order of the court.
On the 8th day of August the respondents filed their notice of appeal from the order appointing the receiver and also applied for an order of supersedeas which* was granted and the bond fixed at $2,000.00. The chancellor within his legal authority to grant a supersedeas on appeal from an interlocutory order, fixed the conditions of the supersedeas and thereby limited its effect not to stay or delay the proceedings in the main suit in the court below. This brings the entire record before this Court.
The bill of complaint contains adequate allegations to entitle complainants to the equitable relief prayed.
The case comes before this Court at this time upon a motion for increase of the supersedeas bond, it being alleged that the property involved is of the value of approximately $100,000.00.
The supersedeas on appeal from the order appointing the receiver under the facts above stated will not be held to stay the proceedings of the suit 'in the court below, but only operates to prevent the functioning of a receiver and suspends the effect of the order appointing the receiver until disposition of the appeal in this Court, or until the case is otherwise disposed of in the court below.
It appears from the allegations of the motion pending before this Court that a bond in the sum of $2,000.00 is adequate to protect the complainant from any loss which might be sustained by reason of the suspension of the interlocutory order appointing the receiver and as the supersedeas of this order does not affect the rights of the parties to otherwise proceed with the litigation the same as if no interlocutory order had been made, the motion for increase of supersedeas bond is denied.
It is so ordered.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum, J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sunrise Beach, Inc. v. Phillips, 181 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…n from an order holding a prior summons valid. The issuance and service of a second summons was not an encroachment upon the appellate court jurisdiction relative to determining the validity of a prior summons. See Coyle v. S. Bobo Dean Corp., 1927, 94 Fla. 637, 114 So. 526; Waring v. Bass, 1918, 76 Fla. 583, 80 So. 514. The third, and most troublesome issue, is whether the order of supersedeas prevented the court from acting further in the cause, and specifically, whether the second summons should have b…