F. R. WHALIN, ET ALS., AND CONRAD T. VOGEL AND AMELIA B. VOGEL, HIS WIFE, ET ALS., APPELLANTS,
v.
ALTHEA SAGE, 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 a final decree that reviewed a prior decree entered against Althea Sage without her service of process or appearance. The court found the bill of review alleged sufficient facts to warrant relief.
Yes, the bill of review alleged sufficient facts to entitle Sage to the relief prayed for, and the subsequent final decree entered on that bill was proper.
“The final decree was entered on a bill of complaint in the nature of a bill of review.”
Describes the nature of the final decree being appealed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA prior final decree was entered against Althea Sage without her being served with process or appearing in the suit. Sage filed a bill of review alleg…
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 Bill Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
This ease is before the Court on appeal from a final decree in favor of complainant, which decree brings up for review interlocutory orders made theretofore.
The final decree was entered on a bill of complaint in the nature of a bill of review. The bill of review alleged that a final decree had been entered against the complainant Althea Sage without service of process of any sort upon her and without the said Althea Sage having appeared for any purpose in such suit.
A demurrer to the bill of complaint was interposed by the appellants here and was properly overruled because the bill of complaint alleged sufficient facts to entitle the complainant to the relief prayed. After the overruling of the demurrer the appellants did not plead further, although the order overruling the demurrer was entered on the 18th day of April, 1929, and appellants were given until May 15th 1929 in which time to plead further. On September 28, 1929, the court entered a final decree, decree pro confesso having been duly entered on the 3rd day of June, 1929.
*763No reversible error is made to appear and therefore, the decree appealed from should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.