CLYDE B. ELLIOTT, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES JOHN ILSLEY EAMES, 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 a lower court's order, finding no error in the overruling of a general demurrer to a bill of complaint. The court also noted that a cross-appeal was abandoned.
The court found no error in the lower court's order overruling the demurrer. The cross-appeal was abandoned, rendering its timeliness moot.
“In this case appellant appealed from an order overruling the general demurrer to first amended bill of complaint.”
Describes the initial appeal filed by the appellant.
Previewing 1 of 4 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant appealed an order overruling a general demurrer to an amended bill of complaint. The appellee filed a cross-appeal to an order sustainin…
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 Interlocutory Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In this case appellant appealed from an order overruling the general demurrer to first amended bill of complaint. Appellee entered cross appeal to order of the chancellor sustaining the demurrer to the amended bill of complaint. The entry of cross appeal was more than sis months after the entry of the interlocutory order sought thereby to be reviewed. The appellee in brief filed abandoned cross appeal.
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said order of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.