LEROY COLLINS, AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., AS AND CONSTITUTING THE STATE BOARD OF CONSERVATION OF FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
LEWIS H. HORTEN ET AL., APPELLEES
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 State Board of Conservation appealed a trial court's permanent injunction against enforcement of one of its rules. The appellate court denied the State's motion to dissolve the injunction bond posted by the successful applicant, holding that the bond remains in force during the appeal and that damages may be recoverable if the appellate court reverses.
The motion to dissolve the bond is premature. The bond remains in force until the appeal is finally determined. If the appellate court reverses the trial court's injunction, the obligors on the bond would become liable for damages suffered by the State Board under the express conditions of the bond.
“Until this cause has been finally determined the bond posted remains in force.”
Establishes that injunction bonds remain in effect during pending appeals
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court issued a temporary restraining order and injunction against the State Board of Conservation from enforcing one of its rules. The succe…
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.
The trial court enjoined the State Board of Conservation from enforcing one of its rules but required the successful applicant for the injunction to post an injunction bond conditioned to pay all costs and damages the defendants may sustain by reason of suing out such temporary restraining order should the injunction be dissolved or the cause dismissed. No copy of the injunction bond appears in the record before us but we assume it was conditioned in accordance with the requirements of the order.
On final hearing the trial court entered its decree holding the subject rule to be invalid and making permanent the temporary injunction theretofore entered, whereupon an appeal was duly taken to this court.
The subject motion is premature. Until this cause has been finally determined the bond posted remains in force. Should the appellate court reverse the trial court and the eventual order of that court be one which in effect dissolves the temporary restraining order entered by it, the obligors on the bond would become liable for such lawful damages as the State Board might have suffered under the express conditions of the order requiring it and the bond itself. In Willys-Overland, Inc. v. Blake, 1929, 97 Fla. 626, 121 So. 884, the Supreme Court reversed a decree of the trial court awarding a temporary injunction which enjoined the sale of certain real property under execution. Suit was instituted on the injunction bond and in National Surety Co. v. Willys-Overland, Inc., 1931, 103 Fla. 738, 138 So. 24, 25, the Supreme Court held:
“The effect of the decision and mandate of the Supreme Court [in Willys-Overland, Inc. v. Blake, supra] was to dissolve the injunction on its merits. The general rule in this state as is apparently true elsewhere, where the rules are similar, is that a dissolution of an injunction upon the merits *898operates as an adjudication that it was improperly issued.”
The question of the measure of damages which may be recovered under this bond in the event this cause is eventually determined in favor of appellant is not before us upon this motion for dissolution of the bond.1
Motion denied.
STURGIS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shea v. Cent. Diagnostic Servs., Inc., 552 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…of any damages resulting from the wrongful issuance of the injunction. See Parker Tampa Two v. Somerset Development Corp., 544 So. 2d 1018 (Fla.1989); Calder Race Course, Inc. v. Gaitan, 430 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). See also Collins v. Horten, 112 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). As to plaintiff’s cross-appeal, rule 1.610 does not in its present form specify who has the burden of initially going forward on a motion to dissolve or modify a temporary injunction obtained without notice. A plaintiff who has…
-
Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, Local 1416, AFL-CIO v. E. S.S. Lines, Inc., 206 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…nt recovery on the bond. Having heard the parties on the petition for review of the order denying superse-deas, we proceed to a determination of the interlocutory appeal without further argument. On the authority of Collins v. Horten, Fla.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 897, we hold that the trial court committed error in can-celling the injunction bond and releasing the surety. Cf. Galloway v. Musgrave, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 846, 850. In Collins v. Horten, supra, such a motion for cancellation of bond and release o…
-
Collins v. Horten, 111 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
Authorities Cited
- Nat'l Sur. Co. v. Willys-Overland, Inc., 103 Fla. 738 (Fla. 1931)
- Willys-Overland, Inc. v. Norris D. Blake, 97 Fla. 626 (Fla. 1929)