W. E. SIRMANS AND EDITH T. SIRMANS, HIS WIFE, S. E. WALKER, AND BETTY P. WALKER, HIS WIFE, AND SIRMANS-WALKER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
J. W. TOMPKINS, 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 orders from a lower court but reversed an order confirming a sale, finding it invalid because it was issued after a supersedeas order became effective. The court denied a rehearing.
No, the order confirming the sale was invalid because it was made after the supersedeas order became effective and before the appeal to which it applied was disposed of.
“The order confirming the sale, however, from which order the latter appeal is taken, having been made after the order of supersedeas became effective and before the appeal to which it applied was disposed of in this Court, is invalid.”
Establishes the invalidity of the order confirming the sale.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants filed two appeals. The first appeal was from certain orders and decrees. The second appeal was from an order confirming a sale made under a…
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 Final Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The orders appealed from were affirmed by order filed March 15th, 1928. Petition for rehearing • has been filed and upon considering the same and further examination of the record we find that pursuant to an order made on the 16th day of August, 1927, a supersedeas bond was filed on September 5th, 1927, making the supersedeas order affecting the first appeal effective.
The second appeal was from an order confirming the sale made under the final decree. There being no showing to the contrary, we must assume that the sale was made before the supersedeas order became and was effective.
The order confirming the sale, however, from which order the latter appeal is taken, having been made after the order of supersedeas became effective and before the appeal to which it applied was disposed of in this Court, is invalid.
The orders and decrees appealed from in the first appeal are now affirmed. The order of confirmation of sale appealed from in the second appeal is reversed and the cause is remanded for such further orders and proceedings as may be required in the premises and a rehearing is denied.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.