D. J. BRIDIER, ET AL.,
v.
J. H. BURNS, 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.
In this Florida Supreme Court case, H. E. Orr petitioned to enforce a prior court order directing immediate restoration of his possession of premises and fixing of rental payments. The Court found the lower court had failed to comply with its December 8, 1941 order and issued a detailed directive placing Orr in full possession, authorizing him to collect rents, and restraining others from interfering with his rights.
The Court held that its December 8, 1941 order required immediate restoration of possession to Orr, with rental determination being a secondary consideration. The Court placed Orr in full possession, authorized him to collect rents, and restrained all others from interfering with his possession rights.
“The Order of this Court of December 8th meant that Orr be given possession at once. If the proper charge for rents had to be determined, that was an after consideration.”
Establishes that immediate possession was the primary obligation, with rental determination being secondary
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 8, 1941, the Florida Supreme Court ordered the trial court to restore possession of premises to H. E. Orr, fix a fair rental, and require …
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 Attorney Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
ORDER
On December 8, 1941, this Court entered an order in the above styled cause, the essential part of which directed the trial court to restore possession of the premises involved to H. E. Orr immediately, to fix a fair rental on the properties, and to require it to be paid into the registry of the court pending final disposition of the cause.
After more than three months, the cause is again before us on petition of H. E. Orr in person praying that our order of December 8th be carried out. He represents in his petition that he has never been restored to possession of his premises, that nothing has been done in the matter of fixing the rental value of his properties except to refer it to another to take evidence, that some of the tenants are not paying any rents for the use of the properties occupied by them, that others have abandoned the properties and left them in a wrecked and unusable condition, that his attorney B. F. Brass has asked leave to withdraw from the case as of March 14th, that his attorney Walter Hardesty broke into one of his properties and collected rents therefor and that said attorneys Brass and Hardesty conspired to trump up charges against him and have him put in jail for no reason whatever.
We find nothing whatever to support such charge or any charge whatever against attorney B. F. Brass; *240in fact, he is known to this Court as a gentleman and an attorney of high character and standing and worthy the confidence of the bar and the public.
The Order of this Court of December 8th meant that Orr be given possession at once. If the proper charge for rents had to be determined, that was an after consideration.
Section 4637, Compiled General Laws of 1927, makes it the duty of this Court to reverse or affirm the judgment of the court below or give instruction as to what judgment should be entered or to enter such judgment or decree as the court below ought to have entered. It is accordingly Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed that petitioner H. E. Orr be and he is hereby placed in full possession of the premises involved in this litigation at once, that this Order be the evidence of his possession and authority to any one who may be in possession of all or any part of said premises to recognize the right of possession of H. E. Orr therein and to turn over the premises to him.
It is further Ordered that all persons who have heretofore exercised any right over the said premises be and they are hereby restrained from interfering with the possession of H. E. Orr, that the said Orr is hereby authorized and directed to rent said properties at the best terms that can be secured, to collect any and all rents now or hereafter to become due thereon and place the same in the registry of the circuit court, after paying insurance and restoring the premises to rentable condition, such rentals so collected and placed in the registry of the court there to hold subject to the terms and conditions of our said order of December 8, 1941. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby authorized to pay the insurance *241premium secured by B. F. Brass on said premises to the amount of $211.17.
TERRELL, WHITFIELD, BUFORD and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur.
BROWN, C. J., concurs in conclusion.
THOMAS and ADAMS, JJ., dissent.
I adhere to the view expressed in my dissenting opinion filed 8 December 1941.
ADAMS, J., concurs.
THOMAS, J.:
I adhere to the view expressed in my dissenting opinion filed 8 December 1941.
ADAMS, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bridier v. Burns, 153 Fla. 334 (Fla. 1943)…judge, that certain aggrieved parties to the cause have presented to the said Circuit Court their petition praying for the enforcement of that certain order entered by this Court in the above styled and entitled cause on the 27th day of March, 1942, 150 Fla. 238, 7 So. (2nd) 142. The Circuit Court, through one of its judges, has requested directions as to the power and jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to hear and determine the matters presented by the said petition and to enter orders and judgments pursua…1 / 2
-
Gay Poling v. City Bank & Tr. Co. OF ST. Petersburg, 189 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…35, text 640; Braddock v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company, Fla. 1955, 80 So. 2d 662. For cases where the statutory authority was actually utilized, see: In re Petition of Vermeulen, Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 318, text 322; Bridier v. Burns, 1942, 150 Fla. 238, 7 So. 2d 142, text 143; Schnabel v. Betts, 1887, 23 Fla. 178, 1 So. 692, text 693; Wright v. Board of Public Instruction, Fla. 1957, 100 So .2d 403, text 406. Having satisfied ourselves of our authority in the premises, and feeling that the instan…
-
Griffin v. LaSalle Bank, N.A., 318 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 2020)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence