The writ of error herein was taken to a judgment of the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, remanding plaintiffs in error to custody of respondent on habeas corpus to test the legality of a judgment holding petitioners to be guilty of contempt of the court and sentencing each of them to thirty days imprisonment in the county jail, entered in the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County. In effect the charge of contempt of court against the defendants is that in proceedings under the...
The writ of error herein was taken to a judgment of the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, remanding plaintiffs in error to custody of respondent on habeas corpus to test the legality of a judgment holding petitioners to be guilty of contempt of the court and sentencing each of them to thirty days imprisonment in the county jail, entered in the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County. In effect the charge of contempt of court against the defendants is that in proceedings under the...
The writ of error herein was taken to a judgment of the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, remanding plaintiffs in error to custody of respondent on habeas corpus to test the legality of a judgment holding petitioners to be guilty of contempt of the court and sentencing each of them to thirty days imprisonment in the county jail, entered in the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County. In effect the charge of contempt of court against the defendants is that in proceedings under the...
The writ of error herein was taken to a judgment of the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, remanding plaintiffs in error to custody of respondent on habeas corpus to test the legality of a judgment holding petitioners to be guilty of contempt of the court and sentencing each of them to thirty days imprisonment in the county jail, entered in the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County. In effect the charge of contempt of court against the defendants is that in proceedings under the...
The appellee, Lena E. Ewing, filed an ejectment suit in the Circuit Court of Brevard County, Florida, to recover the title and possession of Lot 30, as described in Deed Book 84, page 120, Metcalf's unrecorded Plat of Wright Brothers' Tract, Section 3, Tp. 28, South Range 37 East. Plaintiff below offered in evidence deed No. 145 issued by the State of Florida through the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida to the plaintiff under date of November 18, 1940. Plaintiff...
In April, 1941, petitioners as members of the State Board of Dental Examiners preferred charges of unprofessional conduct against respondent in the manner authorized by Chapter 14708, Acts of 1931. A hearing was set for May 15, 1941, but on May 13 respondent filed his bill for injunction against petitioners seeking to restrain them from proceeding further in the cause. A temporary restraining order was granted and some other procedural sparring took place that is not relevant here so it is not...
In April, 1941, petitioners as members of the State Board of Dental Examiners preferred charges of unprofessional conduct against respondent in the manner authorized by Chapter 14708, Acts of 1931. A hearing was set for May 15, 1941, but on May 13 respondent filed his bill for injunction against petitioners seeking to restrain them from proceeding further in the cause. A temporary restraining order was granted and some other procedural sparring took place that is not relevant here so it is not...
In April, 1941, petitioners as members of the State Board of Dental Examiners preferred charges of unprofessional conduct against respondent in the manner authorized by Chapter 14708, Acts of 1931. A hearing was set for May 15, 1941, but on May 13 respondent filed his bill for injunction against petitioners seeking to restrain them from proceeding further in the cause. A temporary restraining order was granted and some other procedural sparring took place that is not relevant here so it is not...
In April, 1941, petitioners as members of the State Board of Dental Examiners preferred charges of unprofessional conduct against respondent in the manner authorized by Chapter 14708, Acts of 1931. A hearing was set for May 15, 1941, but on May 13 respondent filed his bill for injunction against petitioners seeking to restrain them from proceeding further in the cause. A temporary restraining order was granted and some other procedural sparring took place that is not relevant here so it is not...
Agnes Wallace, then a married woman, and her husband, George M. Wallace, suffered judgment to be entered against them in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts on the 23rd day of October, 1931. The judgment is valid as against both parties in the State of Massachusetts. Since the entry of judgment and before suit was instituted in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County (Florida), Agnes Wallace and George M. Wallace were divorced. So she was a single woman when the suit was...
Agnes Wallace, then a married woman, and her husband, George M. Wallace, suffered judgment to be entered against them in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts on the 23rd day of October, 1931. The judgment is valid as against both parties in the State of Massachusetts. Since the entry of judgment and before suit was instituted in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County (Florida), Agnes Wallace and George M. Wallace were divorced. So she was a single woman when the suit was...
Agnes Wallace, then a married woman, and her husband, George M. Wallace, suffered judgment to be entered against them in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts on the 23rd day of October, 1931. The judgment is valid as against both parties in the State of Massachusetts. Since the entry of judgment and before suit was instituted in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County (Florida), Agnes Wallace and George M. Wallace were divorced. So she was a single woman when the suit was...
Agnes Wallace, then a married woman, and her husband, George M. Wallace, suffered judgment to be entered against them in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts on the 23rd day of October, 1931. The judgment is valid as against both parties in the State of Massachusetts. Since the entry of judgment and before suit was instituted in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County (Florida), Agnes Wallace and George M. Wallace were divorced. So she was a single woman when the suit was...
The writ of error brings for review judgment in favor of plaintiff, a real estate broker, for commission on the sale of a parcel of real estate. The right to recover the commission depends upon factual conditions, and therefore, no useful purpose could be served by the writing of an opinion citing elementary law which would be controlling in this case. The record has been examined in the light of briefs filed and argument heard with result that we find no reversible error. Therefore, the...
A statement of the facts of this case will be found in Wolkov, et ux., v. Pickering Construction Company, *Page 183 147 Fla. 506 , 3 So. 2d 350 , where it was first considered. Four questions are posed on this appeal. Questions One, Two and Three have to do with the status of certain intervenor's claims, the liability of an undisclosed principal and his agent and the separation of the suit of the intervenors from that of original plaintiff. The Court is of the view that these questions were...
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 501 This is a petition under Rule 34 for interlocutory appeal by certiorari from an order below denying petitioner's motions to dismiss the bill of complaint. The facts alleged in the bill as set out are assumed to be true on this consideration of the motions to dismiss. It appears that the petitioners, Mitchell Wolfson, et ux., and the respondents, W.C....
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 501 This is a petition under Rule 34 for interlocutory appeal by certiorari from an order below denying petitioner's motions to dismiss the bill of complaint. The facts alleged in the bill as set out are assumed to be true on this consideration of the motions to dismiss. It appears that the petitioners, Mitchell Wolfson, et ux., and the respondents, W.C....
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 501 This is a petition under Rule 34 for interlocutory appeal by certiorari from an order below denying petitioner's motions to dismiss the bill of complaint. The facts alleged in the bill as set out are assumed to be true on this consideration of the motions to dismiss. It appears that the petitioners, Mitchell Wolfson, et ux., and the respondents, W.C....
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 501 This is a petition under Rule 34 for interlocutory appeal by certiorari from an order below denying petitioner's motions to dismiss the bill of complaint. The facts alleged in the bill as set out are assumed to be true on this consideration of the motions to dismiss. It appears that the petitioners, Mitchell Wolfson, et ux., and the respondents, W.C....
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court on petition for certiorari upon the transcript of the record and briefs, and record having been inspected, and the Court now being advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it is ordered that writ of certiorari be and is hereby granted on authority of State ex rel. Lorenz v. Lorenz, 149 Fla. 625 , 6 So. 2d 620 and the challenged order of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, entered April 16, 1942 is quashed. TERRELL,...
This is an appeal from final decree in favor of plaintiff based on a creditor's bill. *Page 237 This whole controversy involves an undertaking by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, an unincorporated association, to purchase a large tract of land and develop the town of Venice, back in 1925. To carry out this undertaking a corporation, was formed by the name of B. L. E. Realty Corporation. Purchases were made by the corporation and obligations incurred. When the boom collapsed, judgments...
On October 30, 1939, John D. Pigue, for a consideration of $900.00, sold to E.H. Wilson his well drilling equipment and the business of drilling wells in St. *Page 736 Johns County, Florida, and covenanted not to engage in the well drilling business in St. Johns County, Florida, during the ten year period after October 30, 1939. The sales agreement, in part, provided: "Also all the rights and interest of the said J.D. Piague, his heirs, executors or administrator in the business of drilling...
From a careful examination of the record in this case no error has been made to appear, therefore, the final decree is — Affirmed. BROWN, C. J., TERRELL, CHAPMAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur. *Page 648
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the final decree of the circuit court be, and the same is hereby affirmed. Affirmed. BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, BUFORD, and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Appeal dismissed on motion of counsel for appellee.
A decision of this case necessitates the construction of a will in the light of the relevant provisions of Section 21, Florida Probate Law, Section 731.20, Florida Statutes, 1941. It is there stated "(1) . . . when any property is . . . bequeathed to . . . blood kindred of the testator, and such . . . legatee dies before the testator, leaving lineal descendants . . . who survive the testator, such legacy . . . does not lapse but such descendants take the property so given by the will in the...
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 456 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 457 On appeal we review final declaratory decree construing the provisions of a certain trust agreement and a supplemental agreement made pursuant to the terms of the original agreement. The trust agreement is as...
Plaintiffs, husband and wife, represented by the former, an attorney, brought their suit against various persons, the principal of whom was Ellen M. Staten, and subsequently amended the bill to include her husband as a party defendant, but it does not appear that he was served with process or that he participated in the litigation. The wife filed an answer containing a counter claim and was ultimately favored with a decree granting the relief she sought, namely, foreclosure of her lien. The...
