J. R. GOODWIN AND VETTER GOODWIN, HIS WIFE,
v.
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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 court affirmed the decree below in all respects except for the allocation of costs, which should have been divided equally between the parties.
Plaintiffs' bill was dismissed after exceptions to the master's report were overruled and equities were found with the defendant. The case involved ar…
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 Allocation Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final decree, in which the éxceptions to the master’s report wfere overruled, the equities were found to be with the defendant, and the plaintiffs’ bill dismissed.
In spite of the fact that counsel for appellants had already entered the armed forces. of our country -when he prepared his main brief in behalf of appellants, as well as his reply brief, both of his briefs present very ably and thoroughly every argument which in our opinion could have been, or could be, made in appellants’ behalf. Also, counsel for appellee, who labored under no such difficult conditions, have ably presented their argument in behalf of the correctness of *730the chancellor’s decree. Both briefs are repíete with citations of authorities and court decisions.
It would require a long opinion to review the pleadings and evidence and to discuss the various arguments presented by counsel, and we doubt if any good purpose would be sub-served thereby. Suffice it to say that we have carefully considered the record and the briefs and are satisfied that on the merits of the case the conclusion reached by the master and chancellor was correct, and that no reversible error was committed.
But in our opinion it was to the interest of each of the opposing parties that the main questions involved should be settled, and that therefore the costs in this case, including the master’s fee, should have been equally borne, one-half by the unsuccessful plaintiffs and one-half by the defendant City. In all other respects the decree below should be and is hereby affirmed.
Decree affirmed, and cause remanded with directions to retax the costs as above stated.
CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami v. Murphy, 132 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)…agency of the state so as to be entitled to the benefit of the rule that the state is not liable as a party in its own courts for costs in the absence of an express statute creating such liability. See Goodwin v. City of Jacksonville, 155 Fla. 729, 21 So. 2d 209. It is next urged by the city that it is relieved of the effect of the rule by section 59.14, supra. We cannot agree that this statute has the effect urged because the rule requiring dismissal for nonpayment of costs by an original plaintiff sets f…
-
State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Bramlett, 171 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…agency of the state so as to be entitled to the benefit of the rule that the state is not liable as a party in its own courts for costs in the absence of an express statute creating such liability. See Goodwin v. City of Jacksonville, 155 Fla. 729, 21 So. 2d 209.” Our acceptance of the principle that when designated by statute attorney’s fees are part of the costs is not inconsonant with our conclusion that under Florida Appellate Rule 5.12, supra, the State Road Department, an agency of the State of Flori…