F. L. ANDERSON AND JENNIE E. ANDERSON, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
HARRY A. HARDESTY, 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.
In this mortgage foreclosure appeal, the Florida Supreme Court denied the mortgagee's motion to quash the appeal, finding that the defendants' assignments of error raised debatable questions of law and fact that warranted full appellate review rather than summary dismissal.
The Supreme Court denied the motion to quash the appeal, holding that where assignments of error raise debatable questions of law or fact, the appellate court must not summarily dismiss the appeal but instead hold the case for hearing in its regular order on the docket.
“It is not the purpose of Sections 2920 and 3173, Rev. Gen. Stats, of 1920, (Sections 4639 and 4965, Comp. Gen. Laws of Florida, 1927) to require the court upon motions- to quash, based upon the ground that the proceedings are taken merely for delay, to enter into an examination of or decide doubtful or debatable questions properly raised by the assignments of error, but its purpose is to enable the court to quash such proceedings where the assignments of error are so plainly without merit as to lead to the conclusion that the proceedings were taken merely for delay.”
Establishes the standard for when an appellate court may summarily quash an appeal for delay.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA mortgagee filed suit to foreclose a mortgage on real estate and personal property, attaching copies of the promissory notes and mortgage to the comp…
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 Appeal For Delay cases and more on FLexlaw
Matthews, Commissioner:
Suit was brought to foreclose a mortgage upon real estate and personal property. Bill filed by complainant, mortgagee, is in the usual form with copy of notes and copy of the mortgage .attached.
The answer, to which general replication was filed by complainant, sets up that defendants are without knowledge of the averments of the bill. Some testimony appears to have been taken by deposition which seems never to have been offered or received in evidence and some testimony was taken before a master, who was not authorized or directed to make findings of law or fact.
Defendants appeal from final decree of foreclosure as amended, and assign several errors, among which are insufficiency of the evidence to support the decree and failure to file the original notes and mortgage in evidence.
Motion is made to quash this appeal upon the ground that it is frivolous and was taken against good faith and for the purpose of delay. “Under Sections 2920 and 3173, Rev. Gen. Stats., of 1920, (Sections 4639 and 4965, Comp. Gen. Laws of Florida, 1927) the Supreme Court is authorized and required to entertain and decide motions to quash proceedings in error or by appeal, based upon the ground that such proceedings are taken merely for delay, notwithstanding the ease has not been reached for final hearing upon regular call of the docket.
“It is not the purpose of Sections 2920 and 3173, Rev. Gen. Stats, of 1920, (Sections 4639 and 4965, Comp. Gen. Laws of Florida, 1927) to require the court upon motions-to quash, based upon the ground that the proceedings are taken merely for delay, to enter into an examination of or decide doubtful or debatable questions properly raised by the assignments of error, but its purpose is to enable the court to quash such proceedings where the assignments of error are so plainly without merit as to lead to the conclusion that the proceedings were taken merely for delay. The absence of error in the proceedings must be apparent upon a short and cursory examination of the record,requiring no investigation of authorities nor argument to' show the untenableness of the assignments of error. If there are doubtful or debatable questions of law or fact, raised by the assignment of error, the Court will not investigate or decide them upon motions of this character, but will hold the case for hearing in its regular order upon the docket.
“Where it does not appear from such an examination of the transcript of the record as is required to be given on a motion made under the statute to quash the appeal, that the assignments of error are palpably without merit, or that the appeal was taken against good faith or merely for delay, the motion to quash the appeal should be denied.” Willey v. Hoggson, 89 Fla. 446, 105 So. R. 126.
The motion to quash the appeal is denied.
Per Curiam.
This cause coming on to be heard upon motion of counsel for appellee to quash the appeal herein, and the record having been considered by the Court, and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chapter 14553, Acts of 1929, adopted by the Court as its opinion, it is ordered by the Court that the said motion to quash the appeal be and the same is hereby denied.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Strum, Brown, and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Joseph T. Miller Constr. Co., Inc. v. Seymour H. Borak, 82 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1955)…, the purpose of Rule 37 is to reach appeals that, on a bare inspection of the record, are so readily recognizable ■ as being devoid of merit that the conclusion must be reached that the proceedings were taken merely for delay. Anderson v. Hardesty, 99 Fla. 1347, 128 So, 851; Walker v. American Agri. Chem. Co., 83 Fla. 153, 90 So. 696; Holland v. Webster, 43 Fla. 85, 29 So. 625; Willey v. Hoggson, 89 Fla. 446, 105 So. 126; Clifford v. Eastern Mortgage & Security Co., 123 Fla. 180, 116 So. 562; 2 Florida Jur…
-
Ex parte Sams, 67 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1953)…at an appeal is wholly devoid of merit but reveals that questions are presented which may be considered debatable, the court should deny the motion and then either hold the case for hearing in its regular order upon the docket, Anderson v. Hardesty, 99 Fla. 1347, 128 So. 851; Willey v. Hoggson Corp., 89 Fla. 446, 105 So. 126; Walker v. American Agri. Chemical Co., 83 Fla. 153, 90 So. 696; Holland v. Webster, 43 Fla. 85, 29 So. 625; Twyman v. Roell, 120 Fla. 141, 162 So. 343; or proceed to an adjudication on…
-
Lane v. State, 154 Fla. 853 (Fla. 1944)…Webster, 43 Fla. 85, 29 So. 625; Crump v. Snively-Giddings Const. Co., 99 Fla. 368, 126 So. 291; Randall v. Twitchell, 98 Fla. 559, 124 So. 21, followed in Langfield v. Cozine, 98 Fla. 564, 124 So. 23, 98 Fla. 565, 124 So. 23; Anderson v. Hardesty, 99 Fla. 1347, 128 So. 851; Walker v. American Agr. Chemical Co., 83 Fla. 153, 90 So. 696; Broward v. Bowden, 39 Fla. 751, 22 So. 489; Barrs v. Peacock, 65 Fla. 12, 61 So. 118; DuBose v. Meister, 92 Fla. 995, 110 So. 546. See also 4 C.J.S. page 1961-1963, Sec. 13…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Willey v. W. J. Hoggson Corp., 89 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1925)