CIMOS ANGELIS
v.
TARPON SPRINGS SPONGE PRODUCERS ASSN.
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 an interlocutory injunction issued by the lower court restraining Cimos Angelis from selling or disposing of sponges allegedly subject to a written marketing contract with the Tarpon Springs Sponge Producers Association. The Court held that the temporary injunction to preserve the status quo was properly granted and not improvidently ordered.
The interlocutory injunction was properly granted. The contract on its face is not void or unenforceable, and the temporary injunction to preserve the status of the parties under the contract regarding the sponges already on hand was not improvidently ordered.
“The contract relied on, at least as applied to the sponges already on hand, as described in the bill, is not void nor unenforceable on its face.”
Establishes that the underlying marketing contract was valid and enforceable, justifying the injunction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCimos Angelis produced sponges and placed them in stalls at the Tarpon Springs Sponge Exchange. The Tarpon Springs Sponge Producers Association, claim…
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 Contract Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
Tarpon Springs Sponge Producers Association, Inc., a private corporation for profit, was granted an interlocutory injunction against the appellant, Cimos Angelis, to restrain him, until further order of the Court, from selling, encumbering or otherwise disposing of certain sponges described in the bill of complaint, that it is alleged defendant, Angelis, had produced and placed in certain stalls in the Tarpon Springs Sponge Exchange, but which, so the bill alleges, the defendant was about to sell and dispose of to a third 'party in violation of his alleged written *741contract with complainant to market- same only through complainant’s agency, under the written contract.
The appeal is solely from the order granting the temporary injunction as-to sponges already in esse. And the injunction awarded relates solely to the sponges that are alleged to be subject to the written contract on Angelis which forms the basis of the bill filed by the other party to that contract.
The contract relied on, at least as applied to the sponges already on hand, as described in the bill, is not void nor unenforceable on its face. So the allowance of a temporary injunction to preserve the status of the parties under the contract with reference to such sponges, was not improvidently ordered. No other question than the propriety of allowing the temporary injunction is properly presented, nor can the other questions argued bn this hearing be determined on this appeal, which is solely from the order allowing the temporary injunction. Masser v. London Operating Co., 106 Fla. 474, 145 Sou. Rep. 72; City of Jacksonville v. Giller, 102 Fla. 92, 135 Sou. Rep. 594. The order appealed from is therefore affirmed and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to equity practice.
Affirmed and remanded.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Magnetic Sys. Corp. v. Radiation Inc., 168 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Horter v. Commercial Bank & Trust Company, 1930, 99 Fla. 678, 126 So. 909; Inverness Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. McDaniel, Fla.1955, 78 So. 2d 100; Angelis v. Tarpon Springs Sponge Pro [*162] ducers’ Ass’n, 1933, 111 Fla. 740, 149 So. 630, and North Dade Water Co. v. Adken Land Co., Fla.App.1959, 114 So. 2d 347. SMITH, C. J., and ALLEN and WHITE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Masser v. The London Operating Co., 106 Fla. 474 (Fla. 1932)
- City of Jacksonville v. Giller, 102 Fla. 92 (Fla. 1931)
- Dechman v. Higginbotham, 102 Fla. 92 (Fla. 1931)