MEDITERRANEAN CORP.
v.
SPIRROS PAPPAS, 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 vacated an interlocutory order that struck portions of a complainant's amended bill of complaint and denied a final decree. The court remanded the case, adopting the reasoning from a companion case to guide further proceedings.
The Florida Supreme Court held that the interlocutory order was in error. The court vacated the order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the referenced companion case.
“The present appeal is from an interlocutory order by the Circuit Judge which granted a motion of Edgar L. Nash, defendant in the court below, to strike certain portions of complainant’s amendment to the original bill of complaint.”
Describes the nature of the order being appealed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involved an appeal from an interlocutory order that struck portions of an amended bill of complaint and denied a motion for a final decree. …
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 Interlocutory Review cases and more on FLexlaw
This is the second appearance of this case in this Court. See Mediterranean Corporation v. Pappas, 107 Fla. 876, 146 Sou. Rep. 106, 147 Sou. Rep. 270. The present appeal is from an interlocutory order by the Circuit Judge which granted a motion of Edgar L. Nash, defendant in the court below, to strike certain portions of complainant’s amendment to the original bill of complaint. The order also denied motion for entry of a final decree in the case on the pleadings as framed.
*510In the companion case of Kurz v. Pappas, 116 Fla. 324, 156 Sou. Rep. 737, opinion filed June 25, 1934, will be found a statement of the law which is applicable to the present controversy. It would subserve no useful purpose to add to what has been stated in the opinion of Circuit Judge Hutchinson in the case of Kurz v. Pappas just referred to.
Upon the authority of the opinion in the case of Kurz v. Pappas, filed June 25, 1934, as amended by order of the Court entered June 29, 1934, it is considered, ordered and adjudged by the Supreme Court that the order appealed from in this case be and the same is hereby vacated without prejudice and the cause remanded for the entry of appropriate orders and decrees not inconsistent with the opinion which is referred to and adopted as a statement of the law of this case, one-half of the cost of this appeal to be taxed against the appellant and one-half of such cost to be taxed against the appellees.
It is so ordered.
■ Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kurz v. Pappas, 116 Fla. 324 (Fla. 1934)
- Mediterranean Corp. v. Spirros Pappas, 107 Fla. 876 (Fla. 1933)
- Lake Region Hotel Co. v. Gollick, 108 Fla. 322 (Fla. 1933)