DOCTOR CHALKER EDWARDS AND EARL MALCOLM WADSWORTH
v.
WILLIAM PERRY EDWARDS
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 denied a petition for certiorari challenging an order cancelling a deed and decreeing partition. The Court held that the original June 27, 1939 order could not be reviewed because the appeal was not timely filed within six months, whether the order was considered final or interlocutory.
The writ of certiorari is denied. Whether the June 27, 1939 order is considered final or interlocutory, it cannot be reviewed because the appeal was not timely filed within six months of its entry. An interlocutory order cannot be reviewed on appeal from a subsequent interlocutory order, and a final decree cannot be reviewed from any order entered more than six months thereafter.
“It is immaterial to the disposition of this matter whether the decree of June 27, 1939, is a final decree or an interlocutory order. In either event the time in which it could be reviewed by an appellate court expired six (6) months after date of its record and the order appealed from was entered more than six months after the entry of the order of June 27, 1939.”
Establishes that the six-month appeal deadline applies regardless of whether the order is final or interlocutory, barring any review of the June 27, 1939 order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 27, 1939, a chancellor in Columbia County entered an order cancelling a deed from E.A. Edwards to D.C. Edwards and Earl Malcolm Wadsworth date…
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 Final Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before us on petition for certiorari under Rule No. 34.
On the 27th day of June, 1939, an order was entered by the chancellor in the court below cancelling a certain deed and decreeing partition of real estate in Columbia County, Florida. On the 6th day of March, 1940, the defendants in the court below filed motion to amend the order cancelling the deed and decreeing partition.
The prayer of the motion was that, “Wherefore these defendants respectfully move the Court to enter an Order herein amending the aforesaid Order of Cancellation by striking and omitting from the said Order of Cancellation the finding and the order that the said deed be “cancelled.”
The part of the order sought to be stricken and amended was as follows:
“1. That the deed from' E. A. Edwards to D. C. Edwards and Earl Malcolm Wadsworth dated October 10, 1937, and being recorded in the office of the Clerk of Circuit Court of Columbia County, Florida, in Deed Book No. 25, page 641, be and the same is hereby cancelled and forever rendered null and void and of no force and effect.”
It is immaterial to the disposition of this matter whether the decree of June 27, 1939, is a final decree or an interlocutory order. In either event the time in which it could be reviewed by an appellate court expired six (6) months *376after date of its record and the order appealed from was entered more than six months after the entry of the order of June 27, 1939.
So it is that if the order of June 27, 1939, should be held and considered an interlocutory order, then it cannot be reviewed on an appeal from a subsequent interlocutory order to-wit: the order of April 12, 1940, which denied the motion to amend order cancelling the deed and decreeing partition, supra. See Dekle v. Barkley, 48 Fla. 250, 37 Sou. 581. And if the order of June 27, 1939, be held to be a final decree then it cannot be reviewed by an appeal taken from any sort of an order entered more than six months after such final decree was entered.
The whole contention of the petitioner here is that the court committed error in entering the order of June 27, • 1939, and the effort is to have us review that order, although appeal was not taken therefrom as required.
Respondent is awarded the sum of $150.00 for solicitor’s fees for services in the court to be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the property involved, if same be sold under order of court, or to be paid pro-rata by the owners of such property, if it be partitioned in kind.
The writ of certiorari is denied.
Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Princess Vladimir Eristavitchitcherine v. Miami Beach Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 154 Fla. 100 (Fla. 1944)…h v. Henderson, 52 Fla. 507, 42 So. 705; Buck v. All Parties, etc., 86 Fla. 86, 97 So. 313; Ocean Frontage Company v. McFadden, 98 Fla. 197, 123 So. 666; Bartlett & Sons Company v. Pan-American Studios, 144 Fla. 631, 198 So. 195; Edwards v. Edwards, 144 Fla. 374, 198 So. 14. Nor does the filing of briefs to the merits by an appellee, as here, cure the defect, as the parties cannot confer, by waiver or consent, jurisdiction of the subject matter where such jurisdiction does not legally exist. In the recent…
-
Ira Reamer v. Reamer, 361 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…leness of the value affixed on the property. No such attack was made on the appraisal, the order of the trial judge requiring a sale in compliance with the previous property settlement Agreement of the parties is hereby affirmed: Edwards v. Edwards, 144 Fla. 374, 198 So. 14 (1940); Herman A. Thomas, Inc. v. Sharpe, 309 So. 2d 592 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Commercial Bank v. Towers, 48 Fla. 250 (Fla. 1904)
- Dekle v. Barkley, 48 Fla. 250 (Fla. 1904)