ARMSTRONG, CATOR & CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
SAMUEL A. GLENN, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a creditor's bill, citing the appellants' failure to file a brief or argue their assignments of error. This decision reinforces the precedent that unargued errors are considered abandoned.
Yes, the assignments of error are considered abandoned. The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
“There has been an entire failure on the part of appellants to file any brief on or to argue the assignments of error made in this court, and they must be considered as abandoned.”
Establishes the primary reason for the court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants, a group of creditors doing business as Armstrong, Cator & Co., filed a bill for their own benefit and for other creditors against Eliza Ho…
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 Appellate Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
[*388] Mabry, J.:
In June, 1889, R. W. Cator, W. J. K. Waters, W. H. Pagon, J. McKenne White, J. H. Cator, F. P. Cator, and George Cator, doing business in the city of Baltimore, State of Maryland, under the firm name of' Armstrong, Cator & Co., filed a bill for their own benefit as well as for the benefit of such other creditors of Eliza Hooper as shall come in and contribute to the expenses of the suit, against Samuel A. Glenn, Eliza Hooper and her husband, Matthew Hooper in right of his wife and in his own right, Ella C. Chamberlain and her husband, E. P. Chamberlain. This bill was dismissed on demurrer thereto and an appeal was entered to the January Term, A. D. 1891, of this court.
There has been an entire failure on the part of appellants to file any brief on or to argue the assignments of error made in this court, and they must be considered as abandoned. This court has established the precedent that errors assigned here and not argued will be treated as abandoned and the judgment appealed from affirmed. Clark vs. So. Express Co., 33 Fla., 617.
The. decree appealed from is affirmed and it will be-so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213 (Fla. 1903)…8, 13 South. Rep. 955; Everett v. State, 33 Fla. 661, 15 South. Rep. 543; Clarke v. Southern Express Co., 33 Fla. 617, 15 South. Rep. 252; Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. Co. v. Griffin, 33 Fla. 602, 15 South. Rep. 336; Armstrong, Cator & Co. v. Glenn, 34 Fla. 387, 16 South. Rep. 279; Hayes v. Todd, 34 Fla. 233, 15 South. Rep. 752; Lambright v. State, 34 Fla. 564, 16 South. Rep. 582; Thomas v. State, 36 Fla. 109, 18 South. Rep. 331; Wall v. Shelley, 36 Fla. 357, 18 South. Rep. 856; Charles v. State, 36 Fla. 6…
Authorities Cited
- Clarke v. The S. Express Co., 33 Fla. 617 (Fla. 1894)