PENINSULA TERMINAL CO.
v.
RUDOLPH TOWNSEND
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.
This case, a companion to others decided concurrently, involves an appeal from a decree regarding monetary allowances. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for modification of the decree.
The decree was proper in part but improper in its allowance of monetary sums to the complainant beyond interest accrued from the suit's commencement. Therefore, the decree is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
“For the reasons pointed out in. the opinion in the case of Peninsula Terminal Company v. Zaring, supra, the decree herein is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause remanded to the Circuit Court with directions to enter an amended final decree from the complainant below, in such form as to eliminate therefrom all allowance to complainant on the moneys adjudged to be returned to him, except interest from the date of the institution of this suit in the court below.”
This quote explains the court's decision and the specific modification required for the lower court's decree.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case is a companion to Peninsula Terminal Company v. Zaring and Peninsula Terminal Company v. J. S. Sterling. The issue and the decree appealed fr…
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.
This is a companion case to that of Peninsula Terminal Company v. Zaring, et ux., this day decided, and that of Peninsula Terminal Company v. J. S. Sterling, likewise decided this day. The issue involved and the decree appealed from in each case, are in substance the same, and this Court has determined that they should be disposed of in the same manner.
For the reasons pointed out in. the opinion in the case of Peninsula Terminal Company v. Zaring, supra, the decree herein is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause remanded to the Circuit Court with directions to enter an amended final decree from the complainant below, in such form as to eliminate therefrom all allowance to complainant on the moneys adjudged to be returned to him, except interest from the date of the institution of this suit in the court below. The costs of this appeal are taxed equally against appellant and appellee, mandate to issue accordingly.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown, J. J.,..concur,.
Buford, J., dissents.