ELIZABETH HULDA PEPPE, A SINGLE WOMAN, R. A. HOLMAN AND MARY HOLMAN, HIS WIFE, AND ALICE W. BEEBE, APPELLANTS,
v.
C. FARRIS BRYANT, GOVERNOR ET AL. AS THE TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, AND SIESTA PROPERTIES, INC., APPELLEES
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 District Court of Appeal affirmed a partial summary decree, holding that the appellants failed to demonstrate reversible error. The court dismissed a separate appeal from the same decree as interlocutory.
No, the appellants failed to show that the chancellor committed any reversible error in entering the partial summary decree.
“We determine that the partial summary decree appealed is interlocutory in nature and therefore dismiss the appeal and proceed to the merits of this cause on the interlocutory appeal.”
Establishes the court's decision to dismiss one appeal as interlocutory and proceed with the other.
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 a partial summary decree entered by a chancellor. They also filed a separate appeal from the same decree, which the court deemed i…
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 Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants have taken both an appeal and an interlocutory appeal from a partial summary decree entered by the chancellor below. We determine that the partial summary decree appealed is interlocutory in nature and therefore dismiss the appeal and proceed to the merits of this cause on the interlocutory appeal.
We have carefully examined the record on appeal in this case and studied the excellent briefs submitted by the parties.
When viewed in the light of the case of Siesta Properties, Inc. v. Hart, Fla.App. 1960, 122 So.2d 218, and Fla.St. 66.13, F.S.A., we hold that the appellants have failed to show that the learned chancellor below committed any reversible error in entering the partial summary decree herein appealed. It has long been the established law of this jurisdiction that the appellant has the burden of showing reversible error.
The partial summary decree appealed is hereby affirmed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., and LILES and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryant v. Peppe, 238 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1970)…leas of equitable estoppel and laches filed by the plaintiffs as counter-defendants in their answer to the Trustees’ counterclaim seeking to quiet title to the property in the State. This decree was affirmed on appeal. Peppe v. Bryant, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 795. Upon the remand, the trial court heard evidence on the issues made by the pleas of equitable estoppel and laches and found in favor of the plaintiffs. He based his conclusion on a finding that the tax assessor had for many years assessed the proper…
-
Bryant v. Peppe, 226 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…the complaint, declaring title to be in the State, and leaving open for trial several allegations in the appellees’ reply to the Trustees’ cross-complaint whereunder the State might be held es-topped to assert title. Peppe v. Bryant, Fla. App.1966, 190 So. 2d 795. Before the ap-pellees bought the property their predecessor in title had defended his possessory right to the Gulf frontage in an action in which an injunction was entered, enforced and upheld by our Supreme Court in Guess v. Azar, Fla. 1952, 57 So…
Authorities Cited
- Siesta Props., Inc. v. Hart, 122 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)