J. S. BAKER
v.
ACME FRUIT COMPANY
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 lower court's decree in favor of a defendant who had a contract to manage an orange grove. The court found no material error in the record despite procedural issues with testimony and its filing.
The court held that no material error was made to appear in the entire record, and therefore the decree of the lower court was affirmed.
“An answer was filed and a counter claim for amounts due appellee under the contract was interposed; testimony was taken and decree rendered for the defendant below on its counter claim.”
Describes the procedural posture and outcome in the lower court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant sued for an accounting and cancellation of a contract with appellee for grove management. Appellee filed a counterclaim for amounts due unde…
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 Admissibility Of Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant brought suit for an accounting and for the cancellation of a contract made with the appellee for the cultivation and operation by the appellee of an orange grove of the appellant upon a cost plus ten per cent, basis' with a lien on the property for amounts due appellee. An answer was filed and a counter claim for amounts due appellee under the contract was interposed; testimony was taken and decree rendered for the defendant below on its counter claim. The entry of appeal on July 5, 1933, is as follows:
“Now comes the complainant, J. S. Baker, and gives' notice of his appeal herein and makes the same returnable to the Suprenje Court of the State of Florida on the 19th day of September, 1933.”
The sufficiency of this entry of appeal need not be discussed. No objections or exceptions were taken to testimony adduced before the examiner and there was no written stipulation as to objections or exceptions to testimony. The report of the examiner was not filed for nearly a year after the testimony was taken. At the final hearing objections to testimony were interposed and overruled by the Chancellor. Decree for cross complainant was rendered and a rehearing denied. Upon a consideration of the entire record no material error is made to appear, therefore the decree is
Affirmed.
• Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carter v. Hunter J. Carter, Sr., 88 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1956)…the clear rule of the common law that the right of dower was a preferred property right and that it would not be barred under such circumstances in the absence of a statute expressly doing so. Petitioner relies on Peeples v. Corbett, 117 Fla. 213, 157 So. 510. The rule of that decision, although a sound one, does not control the instant case. There a son who murdered his father committed suicide before he was tried. In a contest involving the rights of the widow of the wrongdoing son, the court merely fo…
-
The Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am., Inc. v. Baitinger, 452 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…acquisition of property or interest by the killer).4 Additionally, the former statute required a criminal conviction of murder as a prerequisite to a forfeiture of the killer’s interest in the decedent’s estate. See Peeples v. Corbett, 117 Fla. 213, 157 So. 510 (1934). See also Nable v. Estate of Godfrey, 403 [*143] So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (the prior statute required a conviction of murder and manslaughter was insufficient to trigger the statute’s forfeiture provision). The present statute, on the…1 / 2
-
Hill v. Morris, 85 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 1956)…tion of the decedent’s estate to which such murderer would otherwise be entitled shall pass to the persons entitled thereto as though such murderer had died during the lifetime of the decedent.” (Italics added.) In Peeples v. Corbett, 117 Fla. 213, 157 So. 510, 511, we held that a complaint seeking to work a forfeiture under this statute failed to state a cause of action where it did not allege a conviction of murder. Commenting on the statute we said, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Buford: “It will be not…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence