FELIX C. SHARP
v.
JOSEPH A. BUSSEY, ET UX.
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.
Sharp sought equitable relief against his partnership co-member Bussey, challenging the scope of partnership agreements and alleging breach regarding employment terms. The trial court granted temporary injunctions to preserve mutual rights pending final adjudication, and Sharp appealed those orders.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the temporary injunctions, and the orders are affirmed. The appellate court will not anticipate decisions on the various substantive questions to be determined by the trial court before final decree.
“This court on appeal should not anticipate the decisions of the Circuit Judge on the various questions to be determined before final decree can be rendered. As to such undetermined matters, this court has only appellate jurisdiction.”
Establishes the limited role of the appellate court in reviewing temporary injunctions and its refusal to decide substantive issues on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSharp and Bussey were alleged partners with conflicting contentions regarding what documents constitute their partnership agreements and the scope of …
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 Suit In Equity cases and more on FLexlaw
This suit in equity was brought by one member of an alleged partnership against the other member, seeking to have adjudicated conflicting contentions as to what papers constitute the partnership; agreements ' and what are the scope and limits of the partnership agreements and the rights 'of the parties thereunder in view of the conduct of the parties with reference to the contested partnership agreements and the obligations, duties and rights of the parties.
There are allegations that .one of the parties had breached an agreement of the parties as to the employment of one of the parties in the management of the partnership business upon grounds that go to the effectiveness of the agreement adversely affecting the .plaintiff, and relief by injunction is prayed.
'An answer was filed denying the equities alleged and setting up matters seeking to justify the action complained of. Testimony was taken before the Circuit Judge.
The court granted temporary injunctions to preserve mutual rights of the two parties until the further order of the court. An appeal was taken from the orders granting temporary injunctions.
The numerous questions involved apparently require further consideration and legal research before a final decree can be rendered; and it is not made to appear that the chancellor abused the discretion accorded to- him by the law in granting temporary injunctions. This court on • appeal should not anticipate the decisions of the Circuit Judge on the various questions to be determined before final decree can be rendered. As to such undetermined matters, this court has only appellate jurisdiction.
If modifications are necessary to- the equitable operation *777of orders granting temporary injunctions, the circuit court may apply the remedy, when such orders are not pending on appeal and in such latter cases the appellate court may grant leave to apply to the circuit court for appropriate modifications of temporary injunctions to conserve the equitable rights of the parties, all circuit court orders being subject to appellate review.
No substantial error being shown in the orders granting the temporary injunctions, such orders are affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The World Sec. Fund v. Schmidt, 406 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…unction entered in favor of the appellees upon a holding that (1) the appellants have not met their burden to make it appear that the injunction entered is without basis in the pleadings and evidence or is illegal in its nature, see Sharp v. Bussey, 129 Fla. 775, 176 So. 763 (Fla. 1937); Northwestern National Insurance Co. v. Greenspun, 330 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Cunningham v. Dozer, 159 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); (2) while the trial court could not have legally kept the temporary injunction in…
-
Bess v. State, 146 Fla. 562 (Fla. 1941)
-
Lock v. State, 146 Fla. 574 (Fla. 1941)…he truth. The circuit judge approved the verdict by denying motion for new trial. Under such conditions, we should not disturb the judgment. See Johns v. State, 134 Fla. 358, 183 Sou. 732; Bowman v. State, 114 Fla. 29, 152 Sou. 739; Smith v. State, 129 Fla. 775, 176 Sou. 781, and Smith v. State, 142 Fla. 468, 194 Sou. 873. No reversible error being made to appear, the judgment is affirmed. So ordered. Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Buford and Adams, J. J., concur.…