A. O. STEENBURG, A. C. STEENBURG AND H. M. TILLIS, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALICE A. RICHBOURG AND D. J. RICHBOURG, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES

Fla. | 1903-01-01
45 Fla. 589 Florida Supreme Court (1903) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

This cause came on to be finally heard, and was duly considered upon the abstracts of the record and briefs of counsel for the respective parties, and the court being advised of its opinion, that there is no error, it was, therefore, considered by the court that the interlocutory decrees of the court below from which this appeal was taken be and the same are affirmed, except the interlocutory decree dated August 17th, 1897, refusing motion to dissolve injunction, which is not considered, because the appeal therefrom was entered more than, six months after its rendition. Ray v. Frank; Mattair v. Furchgott, decided by this court at thé June term, 1902.

Appellants will be taxed with the costs of this appeal.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Futch v. Adams, 47 Fla. 257 (Fla. 1904)
    …ed within six months prior to the entry of appeal, but not those entered more than six months prior to the entry of appeal. Ray v. Frank, 44 Fla. 681, 32 South. Rep. 925; Mattair v. Furchgott, 44 Fla. 620, 32 South. Rep. 925; Steinberg v. Richbourg, 45 Fla. 589, 33 South. Rep. 521. The orders sustaining the demurrer to the original hill and denying the petition for a rehearing having been entered more than six months prior to the entry of the appeal in the present case, can not under the rule stated be rev…
  • Mitchell v. Mason, 61 Fla. 692 (Fla. 1911)
    …herefrom. Futch v. Adams Bros., 47 Fla. 257, 36 [*694] South. Rep. 575; Dekle v. Barkley, 48 Fla. 250, 37 South. Rep. 581; Mattair v. Furchgott, 44 Fla. 620, 32 South. Rep. 925; Ray v. Frank, 44 Fla. 681, 32 South. Rep. 925; Steinburg. v. Richbourg, 45 Fla. 589, 33 South. Rep. 521. In the order overruling the demurrer to the bill, the court granted leave to the defendant until the rule day in November, 1909, to file his answer or plea to the bill. The appellant under this order filed nine separate pleas…
  • Harbor v. Lancaster, 70 Fla. 200 (Fla. 1915)
    …was entered on January 28, 1915, which was too late for appellant to have this court review the first interlocutory order. Mattair v. Furchgott, 44 Fla. 620, 32 South. Rep. 925; Ray v. Frank, 44 Fla. 681, 32 South. Rep. 925; Steenburg v. Richbourg, 45 Fla. 589, 33 South. Rep. 521; Futch v. Adams Bros., 47 Fla. 257, 36 South. Rep. 575; Mitchell v. Mason, 61 Fla. 692, 55 South. Rep. 387. The answer filed by the defendant below was not under the seal of the corporation, therefore cannot be considered as an…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw