J. S. HOWARD AND ETHEL B. HOWARD, AND JOE HILL WILLIAMS, AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR P. M. DUKES, PAULINE DUKES AND ANNIE DUKES,
v.
THE FEDERAL LAND BANK OF COLUMBIA
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 an order striking portions of an answer, finding that the stricken parts constituted no defense to the action. The court denied a request for oral argument due to the clear lack of merit in the appeal.
No, the Chancellor did not err in striking portions of the answer because those parts constituted no defense. The request for oral argument is denied.
“there was no error in the order of 'the Chancellor striking portions of the answer interposed from which order the appeal was taken.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the lower court's action.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants appealed an order from the Chancellor that struck portions of their answer. The Federal Land Bank of Columbia was the opposing party. Appel…
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 Motion To Dismiss Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
This cas'e is before us on motion to dismiss the appeal. An examination of the record and consideration of briefs filed by the respective parties discloses that there was no error in the order of 'the Chancellor striking portions of the answer interposed from which order the appeal was taken. The parts of the answer which were stricken constituted no defense to the action and, therefore, the order should be affirmed. We have not overlooked the fact that the appellants’ solicitors have filed request for oral argument in this case. We have inspected the record and considered the briefs and it is clearly apparent to the Court, that there is no merit in the assignments of error. Therefore, the request for oral argument is denied and the order appealed from is affirmed.
*249So ordered.
Whitfield', C. J., and Ellis, Brown, Buford, and Davis, J. J., concur.