AMERICAN FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND HUNT ADAIR SPRINGFIELD, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIE B. WILLIAMS, 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.
The court granted a motion to quash an appeal, deeming it frivolous or for delay, because the underlying judgment being garnished was affirmed. Although the garnishment proceeding itself was dismissed in a related case, this appeal's motion to quash was granted based on the affirmance of the tort judgment.
Yes, the appeal should be quashed. The motion to quash the appeal is granted.
“Appellee has moved to quash this appeal on the ground -that it is frivolous or taken only for the purpose of delay.”
Establishes the procedural posture and the appellee's motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involves a garnishment proceeding seeking to enforce a judgment. The appellants sought to appeal a summary final judgment for the plaintiff-…
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
Appellee has moved to quash this appeal on the ground -that it is frivolous or taken only for the purpose of delay. Florida Appellate Rule 3.9(b), 31 F.S.A.
The factual background of this appeal, which seeks review of a summary final judgment for plaintiff-appellee in a garnishment proceeding, is identical with the case of American Southern Insurance Company v. Driscoll, Fla.App., 125 So.2d 105, in which we have this day filed our opinion holding that the garnishment proceeding should be dismissed. That disposition was based on the fact that we followed a former practice, which we have announced our intention to discontinue, whereby upon reversal of a final judgment sought to be enforced by the proceeding in garnishment we directed dismissal of the garnishment proceeding. However, in regard to the motion to quash now under consideration, the situation is different in that we have affirmed, rather than reversed, the judgment in the tort action the enforcement of which provided the basis for the garnishment involved on this appeal. See the case of Springfield v. Williams, Fla.App. 125 So.2d 145.
*108The motion to quash this appeal is granted on the authority of the within cited Driscoll case.
STURGIS, Acting Chief Judge, CARROLL, DONALD, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Quarrier, 175 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…, in the regular order of handling the business of this court, a similar situation develops.” On the same day that we filed our opinion in the Driscoll case, we granted a motion to quash the Appeal in American Fire and Casualty Company v. Williams, 125 So. 2d 107 (Fla.App.1960), on the ground that it was frivolous, but under circumstances where the judgment in the main action had been affirmed, rather than reversed as in Driscoll; and we reiterated our intention on future appeals from judgments in garnishmen…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. LEE, 171 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…tactics. The motion to quash is granted and this appeal is dismissed. STURGIS, C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur. . American Southern Insurance Company v. Driscoll, 125 So. 2d 105, (Fla.App.1st 1960). . American Fire and Casualty Co. v. Williams, 125 So. 2d 107, (Fla.App.1st, 1960). . Conley v. Singleton, Fla.App.1st, 1965, 171 So. 2d 65, filed January 25, 1965.…
Authorities Cited
- Am. S. Ins. Co. v. Driscoll, 125 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Hunt Adair Springfield v. Williams, 125 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)