Judges: ELLIS, C.J.
Attorneys: Carlton C. Arnow, for Appellant;
W.E. Baker and Baxter Clayton, for Appellee.
Filed: Sep. 22, 1937
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 312 Waybright appeals from an order striking all of his answer to D.W. Turner's petition, claiming part of a surplus fund held in the court's registry and arising from foreclosure of a mortgage on certain property herein referred to as the "Waybright property," except that portion of the answer alleging that the price bid at the foreclosure sale of certain ot
Summary: [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 312 Waybright appeals from an order striking all of his answer to D.W. Turner's petition, claiming part of a surplus fund held in the court's registry and arising from foreclosure of a mortgage on certain property herein referred to as the "Waybright property," except that portion of the answer alleging that the price bid at the foreclosure sale of certain oth..
More
I think that an order should be made in this case that, while the petition for a rehearing is a violation of the rule against incorporating an argument in the petition, nevertheless, the petition brings to the attention of the Court an apparent conflict between the holding in the instant case and the holding in the case of Belle Mead Development Corporation v. Reed,114 Fla. 300, 153 South. Rep. 834, and subsequent cases following the doctrine announced in that case; therefore, the point presented should be reconsidered.
WHITFIELD, TERRELL, BROWN, BUFORD and CHAPMAN, J.J., concur.
