CHARLES E. PELOT
v.
FRED B. LOEB
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 dismissed an appeal because it was taken solely from an interlocutory order after a final decree had been entered, and the final decree was not included in the appeal.
No, an appeal taken solely from an interlocutory order after a final decree, which does not bring up the final decree for review, cannot be considered by the appellate court and will be dismissed.
“An appeal in an equity cause, taken subsequently to the rendition of a final decree therein, solely and expressly from an interlocutory order therein, that does not bring up such final decree for review, cannot be considered by this Court and will be dismissed.”
This quote explains the core legal principle for dismissing the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn interlocutory order overruling a motion to dismiss a bill of complaint was entered on November 10th, 1932. A final decree was subsequently entered …
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
In this case motion is made to dismiss the appeal. An interlocutory order overruling a motion to dismiss a bill of complaint was entered November 10th, 1932. *296Final decree was entered in the cause on March 28th, 1933j as appears from a certified copy of said final decree attached to the appellee’s motion to dismiss the present appeal, which appeal was taken on April 29th, 1933, solely from the interlocutory order of November 10th, 1932. No entry of appeal brings up for review the final decree of March 28th, 1933, the rendition of which antedated the entry of the present appeal from the antecedent interlocutory order.
An appeal in an equity cause, taken subsequently to the rendition of a final decree therein, solely and expressly from an interlocutory order therein, that does not bring up such final decree for review, cannot be considered by this Court and will be dismissed. Banks v. Guinyard, 63 Fla. 334, 58 Sou. Rep. 229; Oneida Land Co. v. Richards, 72 Fla. 116, 72 Sou. Rep. 646; Stanley v. Standard Cypress Co., 54 Fla. 583, 45 Sou. Rep. 478. See also cases referred to in 1 Encyclopaedic Digest of Florida Reports, page 196, et seq.
On the authority of the cases just cited, and the showing made that this appeal is from an interlocutory order, and was not entered until after the final decree, which is not brought up by it, the present appeal must be dismissed and it is so ordered.
Appeal dismissed.
Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Annie Banks v. Guinyard, 63 Fla. 334 (Fla. 1912)
- Stanley v. Standard Cypress Co., 54 Fla. 583 (Fla. 1907)
- Oneida Land Co. v. Richards, 72 Fla. 116 (Fla. 1916)