PETER TOMASELLO, JR., AS RECEIVER, ET AL.,
v.
AMY MABEL NISBET, A WIDOW, ET AL.
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 prior decision, holding that a final decree awarding complainants $25,044.84 and a lien on securities deposited by a trust company was properly within the scope of the pleadings.
Yes, the final decree was properly within the scope of the pleadings and authorized by them. The prior affirmance of this decree was based on this determination.
“The affirmance of the final decree herein by the memorandum decision without opinion filed in this cause on the 17th day of May, 1933, 110 Fla., 256, necessarily held that the decree appealed from was properly within the scope of the pleadings and was authorized by the pleadings.”
Establishes the basis for the court's prior affirmance.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceComplainants sought recovery of funds and a lien on securities deposited by the Cocoa Bank & Trust Company. A final decree was entered in favor of the…
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 Scope Of Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
The affirmance of the final decree herein by the memorandum decision without opinion filed in this cause on the 17th day of May, 1933, 110 Fla., 256, necessarily held that the decree appealed from was properly *621within the scope of the pleadings and was authorized by the pleadings.
The final decree appealed from decreed, among other things, that complainants were entitled to recover the principal sum of $25,044.84, and were entitled to a lien therefor on the securities that had been deposited with the State Treasurer by the Cocoa Bank & Trust Company as a prerequisite to the qualification of that bank to do a trust business, subject to participation in said securities by others equally entitled to payment from the securities in question. No other proposition than that the decree was an appropriate one to be made between the parties to this record, on the pleadings as made herein, was decided by the affirmance heretofore ordered. So far as we are advised at this time, payment of the decree may be realized out of the deposited securities alone. Therefore, controversies which may arise in the future, but which have not yet come to pass, are not determined by the present adjudication.
Rehearing denied.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (45 total)
-
Kiplinger v. Kiplinger, 147 Fla. 243 (Fla. 1941)…not to Section 4989 C. G. L. The residence of a party consists of fact and intention. Warren v. Warren, 73 Fla. 764, 75 So. 35, L. R. A. 1917E 490. Residence indicates place of abode, whether permanent or temporary. Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla. 469, 149 So. 483. A resident is one who lives at a place with no present intention of removing therefrom. Tracy v. Tracy, 62 N. J. E. 807, 48 Atl. 533. Whether or not a party is a resident is a question of law and fact to be settled or determined from the facts of e…
-
Beckwith v. Bailey, 119 Fla. 316 (Fla. 1935)…the last stated circumstances is not entitled to recognition in Florida insofar as the full faith and credit provision of the Federal Constitution is concerned. Herron v. Passailaigue, 92 Fla. 818, 110 Sou. Rep. 539; Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla. 469, 149 Sou. Rep. 483. The decree of the Idaho court may, however, be regarded as' valid and recognized in the courts of Florida, and should be so recognized by the law of comity between states, unless [*330] there is some good and valid reason to the contrary. See Herr…
-
Smetal Corp. v. W. Lake Inv. Co., 126 Fla. 595 (Fla. 1936)…118 So. 60; Balian v. Wekiwa Ranch, 97 Fla. 180, 122 So. 559; Sharman v. Bay Shore Inv. Co., 99 Fla. 193, 126 So. 282; Fowler v. Chillingworth, 94 Fla. 1, 113 So. 667; State, ex rel. Woods-Young Co., v. Tedder, supra; Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla. 469, 149 So. 483. See also in this general connection: Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S.. 679, 24 L. Ed. 565; Wilson v. Seligman, 144 U. S. 41, 36 L. Ed. 338; Riverside Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U. S. 189, 59 L. Ed. 910; Romig v. Gillett, 187 U. S. 111, 47 L. Ed. 97; Po…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 45 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tomasello v. Nisbet, 110 Fla. 256 (Fla. 1933)
- Flowers v. Arthur C. Schenck for the Bank of Wauchula, 110 Fla. 256 (Fla. 1933)