DESOTO BEACH IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, G. C. SUTLIFF, IDA Y. BABCOCK, A WIDOW, ROY F. ROBERTS, SHERIFF OF BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND RALPH C. BOSWELL, APPELLANTS,
v.
D. P. SIAS, APPELLEE
DESOTO BEACH IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, G. C. SUTLIFF, IDA Y. BABCOCK, A WIDOW, ROY F. ROBERTS, SHERIFF OF BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND RALPH C. BOSWELL, APPELLANTS,
D. P. SIAS, APPELLEE
102 Fla. 603
Florida Supreme Court (1931)
Caution
Also reported at: 136 So. 316
Cited by 16 cases
Opinion of the Court
— This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the Orders herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there are no errors in the said Orders; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said Orders of the Circuit Court be, and the same are hereby affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Vining v. Segal, 731 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…), the determination of whether Segal’s accounts are exempt from garnishment hinges on whether the account monies represent Segal’s “earnings” for his “personal services or labor.” § 222.11(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997). See Patten Package Co. v. Houser, 102 Fla. 603, 136 So. 353 (1931); Refco, Inc. v. Sarmiento, 487 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Segal testified that the four accounts in question hold the proceeds from his dental practice. Segal operates two offices as a sole proprietorship. Segal uses these acc…
-
Mrs. v. N. (Minnie Belle) Vandiver, 139 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…19 Fla. 191 (1882); Olesky v. Nicholas, 82 So. 2d 510 (Fla.1955). That the exemption laws are intended to preserve for the unfortunate citizen and his family certain things necessary to entitle him to earn a livelihood. Patten Package Co. v. Houser, 102 Fla. 603, 136 So. 353 (1931). In 11 Fla.Law & Practice, 301, Homestead Exemption § 4, it is said: “§ 4. Nature and Purpose — . “The homestead was designed for the head of the family, for the family’s protection, where it can be sheltered and live beyond t…
-
In re the Est. of Frank C. Deem v. Shinn, 297 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…s assets, we are of the opinion that there exists a more imperative overriding concept. It is written clearly that the homestead law is to be construed liberally for the benefit of those whom it was designed to protect. Patten Package Co. v. Houser, 102 Fla. 603, 136 So. 353 (1931); Hill v. First Nat’l Bank, 79 Fla. 391, 84 So. 190 (1920); Milton v. Milton, 63 Fla. 533, 58 So. 718 (1912); Thomas v. Craft, 55 Fla. 842, 46 So. 594 (1908). See, 16 Fla.Jur. Homesteads, § 4 (1957). And it was designed to protect…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence