Burkhart v. Burkhart
| Decision Date | 04 October 1940 |
| Citation | 198 So. 21,144 Fla. 176 |
| Parties | BURKHART v. BURKHART. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
On petition for clarification.
Prior opinion modified, and decree reversed in part and affirmed in other respects.
For prior opinion, see 197 So. 730. Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Arthur Gomez, Judge.
R. E. Kunkel, E. P. White, and Kunkel & White, all of Miami, for appellant.
A. C. Franks, of Miami, for appellee.
On petition for clarification it is ordered that our former opinion herein be modified in so far as it affirms the decree of the lower court holding defendant's special appearance and motion to quash constituted a general appearance.
The decree appealed from is reversed in so far as it applies to the Chancellor's decree in this regard but as the Court has jurisdiction of the parties as otherwise held by the Chancellor the decree is in other respects affirmed.
THOMAS, J., not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kiplinger v. Kiplinger
... ... cited by counsel for appellee have been examined: Bowmall ... v. Bowmall, 127 Fla. 747, 174 [147 Fla. 252] So. 14; ... Burkhart v. Burkhart, 144 Fla. 168, 197 So. 730; ... Id., 144 Fla. 176, 198 So. 21, and similar cases, are ... applicable to divorce actions and not to ... ...
-
Lucian v. Southern Ohio Sav. Bank & Trust Co.
...my concurrence in the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice TERRELL. In the case of Burkhart v. Burkhart, 144 Fla. 168, 197 So. 730, and 144 Fla. 176, 198 So. 21, it was held the special appearance and motion to dismiss the bill of complaint did not constitute a general appearance. Although I did......
- Miller v. Gardner
- Tallentire v. Burkhart