GEORGE LESSIC, ET AL., ON BEHALF OF CLARENCE GRIGGS FLOYD, A MINOR, APPELLANTS,
v.
A. BOOSKE, APPELLEE
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 dismissed an appeal due to defective notice of appeal. The notice referred to parties by incorrect names (Lessic instead of Messic) and failed to properly identify all necessary parties, particularly minor respondents, preventing the court from obtaining jurisdiction.
The appeal was dismissed because the notice of appeal was defective and insufficient to give the court jurisdiction. The variance in party names (Lessic v. Messic) and the failure to properly identify minor parties through the defective 'et al.' abbreviation prevented the court from obtaining jurisdiction over the necessary parties.
“Because of this variance the notice of appeal is defective and insufficient to give this court jurisdiction of the parties.”
Establishes that the material variance in party names (Lessic v. Messic) deprived the court of jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA. Booske brought a suit against George Messic, Clarence Griggs Floyd (a minor with guardian William Floyd), and Edith Messic (a minor with guardian E…
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 Time For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
The following is the entry of appeal, as shown by the record forwarded to this Court:
“James Macgibbon, Clerk Circuit Court, Pensacola, Fla. “You will please dismiss present appeal in case A. Booske versus George Lessic, et al., and you will please enter new appeal in case A. Booske versus George Lessic, et al., on behalf of Clarence Griggs Floyd, a minor, to Supreme Court of State of Florida to review decree of the Circuit Court of Escambia County, Florida, dated July sixth, nineteen twenty-two, in said cause set appeals are hereby made returnable on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen twenty-three, this message to us as notice of appeal.
“Kent and Beswell.”
There is a motion by counsel for appellee, on special appearance for that purpose, to dismiss the appeal. Among the grounds upon which the dismissal is sought are: first, that the notice of the appeal refers to the parties as A. Booske versus George Lessic, et al., whereas in fact, as shown by the record, the parties to the suit are A. Booske versus George Messic, Clarence Griggs Floyd and Edith Messic, et al.; second, that said appeal is ineffective because it is a second appeal, the record showing an undisposed of former appeal in the case.
In the final decree and anterior proceedings the parties are A. Booske, complainant, versus George Messic, Clarence Griggs Floyd, a minor, and "William Floyd, his guardian ad litem, and Edith Messic, a minor, and Earl Hoffman, her guardian ad litem. There is nothing in the record -to indicate the identity of George Lessic, et al., on behalf of Clarence Griggs Floyd, a minor, named in the purported entry of appeal as appellants, with George Messic, Clarence Griggs Floyd, a minor, and William Floyd, his guardian, ad litem, and Edith Messic, a minor, and Earl Hoffman, her guardian ad litem, respondents in the court below. Because of this variance the notice of appeal is defective and insufficient to give this court jurisdiction of the parties. Furthermore, if this error had not been made and the appeal should be regarded as having been made by George Messic, et al, appellants, versus A. Booske, appellee, on the theory that Messic and Lessic are idem scmcms, the abbreviation of “et al” is ineffectual as to the parties to whom it is intended to refer, and it appearing from the transcript of record sent to this Court that such omitted parties are minors and are jointly interested in the subject-matter of the litigation with the party attempted to be named and are necessary parties appellant, and that they could not now be brought in as appellants because the time for taking an appeal has expired, the motion to dismiss will be granted. National Bank v. Newheart, 41 Fla. 470, 27 South. Rep. 297; State ex rel. v. Canfield, 40 Fla. 36, 23 South. Rep. 591; Cornell v. Franklin, 40 Fla. 149, 23 South. Rep. 589.
Dismissed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brooks v. Miami Bank & Tr. Co., 115 Fla. 141 (Fla. 1934)…field, 40 Fla. 36, 23 So. 591; Cornell v. Franklin, 40 Fla. 149, 23 So. 589; Nat. Bk. of Lancaster v. Newhart, 41 Fla. 470, 27 So. 297; Lowe v. DeLaney, 54 Fla. 480, 44 So. 710; Buch v. All Parties, 86 Fla. 86, 97 So. 313; Lessic, et al., v. Booske, 86 Fla. 251, 97 So. 383; Rabinowitz v. Houk, 100 Fla. 44, 129 So. 501. [*150] > “When the entry of appeal as filed is legally sufficient to give the appellate court jurisdiction of the cause, but the entry of appeal though duly recorded does not properly design…
-
Brown v. City of Palatka, 132 Fla. 260 (Fla. 1938)…591, and Cornell v. Franklin, 40 Fla. 149, 23 South. Rep. 589, the use of such an abbreviation does not include anyone as a party to an appeal except such as are expressly and fully named-in the appeal * * *” See also the case of Lessic v. Booske, 86 Fla. 251, text 252-3, 97 So. 383, where it was said: “* * * There is nothing in the record to indicate the identity of George Lessic, et al., on behalf of Clarence Griggs Floyd, a minor, named in the purported entry of appeal as appellants, with George Mess…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. John Andreu v. Heth Canfield, 40 Fla. 36 (Fla. 1898)
- Cornell v. Franklin, 40 Fla. 149 (Fla. 1898)
- The Nat'l Bank of Lancaster v. Newheart, 41 Fla. 470 (Fla. 1899)