OLAF ZETTERLUND AND JEANETTE ZETTERLUND, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
HENRY H. STRATTON, 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 affirmed the trial court's decision to grant an extension of time for taking testimony in an equity action. The court held that while such extensions are reviewable on appeal, they will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of judicial discretion.
The chancellor did not abuse his discretion in granting the extension. While extensions of time for taking testimony are reviewable by the appellate court, such orders will not be disturbed unless it clearly appears that the court below abused its judicial discretion. The supporting evidence and motion provided ample basis for the order.
“while it is well settled that an order granting an extension of time fox-taking time is reviewable by the appellate court, such order will not be disturbed unless it clearly appears that the' court below abused his judicial discretion”
Establishes the standard of review for extension orders: reversible only upon clear abuse of discretion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Olaf and Jeanette Zetterlund sought to appeal a chancellor's order granting an extension of time for taking testimony in an equity case. Th…
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 Abuse Of Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
Pee Cuexam.
The sole question presented here is whether or not the chancellor erred in granting an extension of time for taking testimony after the cause had been at issue for some time, and after it had been set down for hearing on bill and answer. Equity Rule 71 in effect provides that three months and no more shall be allowed for taking testimony after the cause is at issue, unless the judge .shall upon special cause shown by either party enlarge the time.
The extension complained of here was granted after motion made therefor and notice to the opposite party and on full hearing by all parties to the cause. While it is well settled that an order granting an extension of time fox-taking time is reviewable by the appellate court, such order will not be disturbed unless it clearly appears that the' court below abused his judicial discretion. The record fails to disclose an abuse of such discretion, while the motion for extension with supporting evidence attached thereto is ample basis for the order appealed from. Manassee v. Dutton Bank, 70 Fla. 427, 70 South. Rep. 363; Long v. Anderson, 48 Fla. 279, 37 South. Rep. 216.
Affirmed on the authority of Capehart v. Farmers Bank & Trust Co., 84 Fla. 690, 94 South. Rep. 864; O’Gara v. Hancock, 76 Fla. 1, 79 South. Rep. 167; Braxton v. Liddon, 55 Fla. 785, 46 South. Rep. 324; McMillan v. Warren, 59 Fla. 578, 52 South. Rep. 825; Rausch v. Equitable Life Assr. Soc. of United States, 77 Fla. 846, 82 South. Rep. 295; Converse v. Converse, 81 Fla. 671, 88 South. Rep. 609.
Affirmed.
West, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Demos v. Walker, 99 Fla. 302 (Fla. 1930)…n rule 71 of equity practice, the chancellor exercises a discretion which will not be disturbed by the appellate court except in a clear case of mistake or hardship, or unless an abuse of discretion is plainly made to appear. Zetterlund v. Stratton, 90 Fla. 435, 106 So. R. 79, and cases cited. And as to motions by a complainant for the dismissal of his bill without prejudice, this Court has held that while the Court may grant such a motion, made at any time during the progress of the cause, when the dismis…
-
Edgar v. Maude Milling Bacon, 97 Fla. 679 (Fla. 1929)…ldg., 121. See also an able review of this entire subject by J. E. Futch, Esq., of the DeLand, Fla., bar, in the Florida Bar Assoc. Journal, Nov., 1927. See also in this connection McNeill v. Williams, 64 Fla. 97, 59 So. R. 562; Thresher v. McElroy, 90 Fla. 435, 106 So. R. 79, and Florida Citrus Exchange v. Grisham, 65 Fla. 46, 61 So. R. 123. But the trouble with this declaration was that it joined as plaintiffs the married woman and her husband in Ms capacity as husband and also in his capacity as an ind…
-
Webster v. Cora M. Snyder, 103 Fla. 1131 (Fla. 1932)…152 N. W. 40; Maine vs. James Maine & Sons Co., 198 Iowa 1278, 201 N. W. 20; Bradley vs. Rosenthal, 154 Cal. 420, 97 Pac. 875. Plaintiff in Error has cited Fla. Citrus Exchange vs. Grisham, 65 Fla. 46, 61 Sou. 123, and Thrasher vs. McElvoy, et al., 90 Fla. 435, 106 Sou. 79, in support of the contention that the action may be maintained by the wife. These eases are not in point. The Thrasher case was a suit in replevin by the wife against a third person to recover an automobile which had been taken by her…
Authorities Cited
- McMillan v. Godfrey S. Warren, 59 Fla. 578 (Fla. 1910)
- Rausch v. The Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 77 Fla. 846 (Fla. 1919)
- Long v. Herbert L. Anderson for Elizabeth B. Anderson, 48 Fla. 279 (Fla. 1904)
- O'Gara v. Simeon S. Hancock and Grant U. Conant, 76 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1918)
- Braxton v. Liddon, 55 Fla. 785 (Fla. 1908)
- Manassee v. The Dutton Bank, 70 Fla. 427 (Fla. 1915)
- Ennalla R. Capehart and George G. Somerville v. Farmers Bank & Tr. Co., 84 Fla. 690 (Fla. 1923)
- Converse v. Converse, 81 Fla. 671 (Fla. 1921)