ANNIE LOUISE FORD, APPELLANT,
v.
WEST FLORIDA ENTERPRISES OF PENSACOLA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND EQUITABLE CREDIT & DISCOUNT CO., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, 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 court held that an order dismissing a count based on usury, which is an action at law, is not subject to interlocutory appeal under Florida Appellate Rule 4.2(a).
Plaintiff filed a complaint with counts in equity and law. The trial court dismissed the count based on usury, which is an action at law. Plaintiff at…
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 Action In Equity cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION TO QUASH INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
This is a motion to quash plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal from an order dismissing a count based on alleged usury.
Appellee, West Florida Enterprises, grounds its motion to quash the instant appeal on the contention that an action based on usury is one cognizable at law and thus not subj ect to interlocutory appeal by reason of Florida Appellate Rule 4.2, subd. a, 32 F.S.A.
We are persuaded that appellee’s motion is well founded. Notwithstanding that the most recent revision of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure has abolished the distinction between actions at law and in equity, Florida Appellate Rule 4.2, subd. a continues to provide that interlocutory orders in actions at law may be appealed only where such interlocutory orders relate to venue or jurisdiction over the person.
In the case at bar, it is true that the first count in plaintiff’s complaint asserts a matter cognizable in equity; however, the order sought to be reviewed herein does not relate to said equitable count. It relates instead to the second count sounding in law and thus falls outside the class of interlocutory orders which may be reviewed by this court in conformance with Florida Appellate Rule 4.2, subd. a. See Easley v. Garden Sanctuary, Inc., 120 So.2d 59, 78 *724A.L.R.2d 1199 (Fla.App.2d 1960), and Papy v. Munroe and Chambliss National Bank of Ocala, 204 So.2d 42 (Fla.App.1st 1967).
Interlocutory appeal dismissed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Venezia A., Inc. v. Reubin O'Donovan Askew, 314 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…aims raised by the defendants, which were both legal in nature. More closely analogous to, and dispositive of, the issue presently under consideration is this Court’s decision in Ford v. West Florida Enterprises of Pensacola, Inc., Fla.App.1st 1968, 210 So. 2d 723, wherein this Court stated: “Notwithstanding that the most recent revision of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure has abolished the distinction between actions at law and in equity, Florida Appellate Rule 4.2, subd. a continues to provide that int…
Authorities Cited
- Easley v. THE Garden Sanctuary, Inc., 120 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Papy v. The Munroe & Chambliss Nat'l Bank OF Ocala, 204 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)