GRANT
v.
PHÆNIX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; GRANT AND ANOTHER V. SAME
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 Supreme Court addressed whether funds held by a receiver in a mortgage foreclosure case could be used to pay the appellant's outstanding printing and clerk's fees for the appellate record. The Court held that the receiver should pay the outstanding balance of $1,275 from the collected rents to cover printing costs and unpaid clerk's fees in the first suit, as the appellant lacked sufficient funds and the printer refused to deliver copies without payment, but denied the motion regarding similar costs in a second appeal.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. We find that the cost-of printing the record in No. 185 has been............$1327.00 and .that-the estimated clerk’s fees in the same case are......'..........*. 900.00 In all.............: . $2227.00 Of this the appellant has paid : 1. To the printer........$552 2. To the clerk........400 952.00 Leaving a balance of ."..... . $1275.00 which the appellant represents himself as unable to pay, and the nrinter will not allow the requisite number of the printed copies to be delivered for use at the hearing until his claim is satisfied. The money in the hands of the receiver has been collected from the rents of the mortgaged property during the pendency of the suit. We, therefore; direct that there be paid by the receiver to the clerk of this court the sum of $1275, to be by him used in payment of the amount now due for printing the record, -and the amount of his own taxable fees in the case, not already paid by the appellant. A copy of this order may be certified to the. court below so that it may be carried into effect by an appropriate order of that court upon, the receiver. The, motion papers now. on file do not show that the matters involved in the appeal in No. 1201 are of a character to make it proper to direct that the clerk’s costs and the expense of printing the record in that case he paid by the receiver. Except as to the payment of clerk’s-fees and printer’s charges in No. 165 as above, the motions are overruled. Motion granted in part and-denied m part as to first suit / and denied as to second.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (38 total)
-
Deal v. Mayo, 76 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 1954)…ourt was devoid of jurisdiction to impose it, (2) it constituted double jeopardy which is condemned by law. Sullivan v. State ex rel. Cootner, Fla., 44 So. 2d 96; 39 C.J.S., Habeas Corpus, § 23, pp. 474-475; Ex parte Snow, 120 U.S. 274, 7 S.Ct. 556, 30 L.Ed. 658; Ex parte Crawford, 109 Cal.App. 33, 292 P. 520. It is accordingly our view that petitioner is unlawfully detained and that he should be and is entitled to be discharged. It is so ordered. ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.…
-
Dorsey v. Gill, 148 F.2d 857 (D.C. Cir. 1945)…tional rights have been denied, the remedy of habeas corpus is available. Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 178, 21 L.Ed. [*873] 872; Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556, 572, 3 S.Ct. 396, 406, 27 L.Ed. 1030; In re Snow, 120 U.S. 274, 285, 7 S.Ct. 556, 561, 30 L.Ed. 658; In re Coy, 127 U.S. 731, 758, 8 S.Ct. 1263, 1272, 32 L.Ed. 274; Hans Nielsen, Petitioner, 131 U.S. 176, 182, 9 S.Ct. 672, 674, 33 L.Ed. 118; In re Bonner, 151 U.S. 242, 257, 14 S.Ct. 323, 325, 38 L.Ed. 149; Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86, 91, 43 S.C…
-
United States v. Donard Anthony Clements, 471 F.2d 1253 (9th Cir. 1972)…U.S. 322, 77 S.Ct. 403, 1 L.Ed.2d 370; Bell v. United States (1955) 349 U.S. 81, 75 S.Ct. 620, 99 L.Ed. 905; United States v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp. (1952) 344 U.S. 218, 73 S.Ct. 227, 97 L.Ed. 260; In re Snow (1887) 120 U.S. 274, 7 S.Ct. 556, 30 L.Ed. 658; cf. United States v. Bass (1971) 404 U.S. 336, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d 488; Rewis v. United States (1971) 401 U.S. 808, 91 S.Ct. 1056, 28 L.Ed.2d 493.) In order lawfully to make a firearm covered by the Act, the maker must (1) file an application…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 38 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence