MAYFLOWER INVESTMENT COMPANY
v.
A. BRILL, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF BRILL ELECTRIC COMPANY, CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ETC., ET AL.
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 a lower court's denial of a motion to vacate a prior dismissal order. The court held that after the time for appeal had expired, the lower court lost jurisdiction to reinstate the case.
No, the lower court did not have jurisdiction to vacate the dismissal order and reinstate the case because the time for appeal had expired, rendering the dismissal order final and absolute.
“When the motion was made to vacate the final order dismissing the cause and to reinstate the cause the Court had lost jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties.”
Establishes the core reasoning for the court's decision regarding jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn order dismissing a case was entered on September 5, 1935. On March 27, 1936, an intervenor filed a motion to vacate this dismissal order and reinst…
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 Vacate Order cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case order dismissing the case in the lower court was entered on the 5th day of September, 1935. On the 27th day of March, 1936, a motion was filed by an intervenor to vacate the order of dismissal and reinstate the cause.
On the 5th day of March, 1937, the petition or motion of the intervenor, Mayflower Investment Company, was denied. From that order appeal was taken.
The order dismissing the cause was a final judgment and became absolute on the expiration of twenty (20) days subject to review on appeal within six months after the entry of the order, see Sec. 70, Florida Chancery Practice Act. No appeal was entered within the six months period. *71When the motion was made to vacate the final order dismissing the cause and to reinstate the cause the Court had lost jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties.
The order appealed from is, therefore, affirmed.
So ordered.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
C.U. Assocs., Inc. v. R.B. Grove, Inc., 472 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 1985)…attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29, a litigant must have recovered an amount exceeding that which was earlier offered in settlement of the claim. Moreover, we note that the law does not require a futile act. Haimovitz v. Robb, 130 Fla. 844, 178 So. 827 (1937). Thus, where a bona-fide, good-faith settlement offer has been unequivocally refused, formal tender of the settlement amount is not required. See Sisco v. Éotenberg, 104 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1958). Nonetheless, the offering party bears the burden…
-
Gore v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2000)…Dade Board that it could not make the November 26, 2000, deadline set by this Court in Harris and that it did not want to jeopardize disenfranchising a segment of its voters. The law does not require futile acts. See Haimovitz v. Robb, 130 Fla. 844, 178 So. 827 (1937). Section 102.166(5)(c) requires that, if there is a manual recount, all of the ballots have to be recounted. I cannot find that the Miami-Dade Board’s decision that all the ballots could not be manually recounted between November 22 and Novem…
-
Glave v. Brandlein, 196 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…939, 137 Fla. 501, 188 So. 581; c. been ready, willing and able to pay such balance, 330 Michigan Avenue, Inc. v. Cambridge Hotel, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 725; or d. been excused from such performance. Haimovitz v. Robb, 1937, 130 Fla. 844, 178 So. 827. See also the unvarying encyclopedic treatment of this general rule stated in 29 Fla.Jur., Specific Performance, §§ 31, 107, 126, and 130; 49 Am.Jur., Specific Performance, §§ 40, 143, 161; 22 F.L.P., Specific Performance, §§ 13, 18; 81 C.J.S. Spec…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence