L. C. FISHER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
TOWN OF MILTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
L. C. FISHER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
TOWN OF MILTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
103 Fla. 524
Florida Supreme Court (1931)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 137 So. 696
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
In this case the Town of Milton Procured in the Circuit Court a final decree of foreclosure of an alleged tax lien for the non-payment of municipal taxes. The decree should be affirmed upon authority of the opinion and judgment in the case of Hendricks, et ux. vs. Town of Green Cove Springs, filed in this Court October 14, 1931, and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Bufobd, C.J., and Ellis and Bbown, J.J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Teeeell and Davis, J.J., concur, in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Everglade Cypress Co. v. Tunnicliffe, 107 Fla. 675 (Fla. 1933)…98 Fla. 956, 124 So. 746; Myers vs. Matusek, 98 Fla. 1126, 125 So. 360; Myers vs. Federal Reserve Bank, 101 Fla. 407, 134 So. 600; City Bank of Ft. Lauderdale vs. Hart, 102 Fla. 529, 136 So. 446; American Express Company vs. Cochrane, 103 Fla. 426, 137 So. 696, 3 R. C. L. 595. Cross assignments of error filed by Appellee challenge that part of the final decree allowing interest on Appellant’s preferred claim. On this point the dominant rule is that in the absence o'f controlling statute, interest should…
-
Durrance v. First Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. of Orlando, 116 Fla. 526 (Fla. 1934)…Rep. 847. But on an appeal in chancery an assignment of error that “the court erred in the entry of its final decree” is sufficient to call for review of every error that may appear in a final decree. American Express Co. v. Cochrane, 103 Fla. 426, 137 Sou. Rep. 696. There was no authority shown for the foreclosure of the mortgage for any other debt than that presented by the original promissory note of February 15, 1928. This note was specifically made a part of the mortgage at the time it was executed. While…
-
Hornsby v. Tingle, 134 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)…l decree” was sufficient to call for review of every error that may appear in a final decree in chancery. Durrance v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Orlando, 1934, 116 Fla. 526, 156 So. 526, 531; American Express Co. v. Cochrane, 1931, 103 Fla. 426, 137 So. 696, 698. That principle was modified, however, by the adoption of Florida Appellate Rule 3.5, subd. c and its pre-course, Supreme Court Rule 32, and by the decisions interpreting the latter rules. Thus, in Bybee v. Stearn, Fla. 1957, 95 So. 2d 529, 531…