Burr v. Powell
| Decision Date | 27 February 1912 |
| Citation | 58 So. 29,63 Fla. 379 |
| Parties | BURR v. POWELL. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Citrus County; W. S. Bullock, Judge.
Bill by William C. Burr against George O. Powell. From an order refusing to strike out an amended answer, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Amendments may be allowed to affirmative defenses in an answer.
Upon an appeal from one interlocutory order, cross-assignments of error upon other interlocutory orders will not be considered.
COUNSEL Davant & Davant, for appellant.
G. C. Martin, for appellee.
This appeal is from an interlocutory order, refusing to strike an amended answer to a bill to enforce a mortgage lien. The original answer is full, in so far as it makes an issue upon the allegations of the bill, but exceptions were sustained to portions of the answer wherein a defense founded upon the statute of limitations was set up, and also a plea along the same line was overruled, leave being given to amend the answer.
In what is termed an 'amended and separate answer' in the introductory part, and concluding this defendant having herein and heretofore fully answered defenses on various statutes of limitations are urged. The motion to strike this pleading is based upon the conception that the defenses are in fact three separate pleas, without verification or certificate, and that successive pleas in equity are inhibited. The motion was properly denied.
The rules invoked apply when the defendant seeks to avoid an answer by plea, but not to affirmative defenses in an answer, as to which the court may allow amendments as in other pleadings.
We are unable to consider the cross-assignments, as they all relate to orders of the circuit court, which have not been brought here for review. We have frequently held that an appeal from an interlocutory order, unlike an appeal from a final decree, brings up for review the order or orders named in the appeal and nothing more, that this must be so by force of the language of the statute, and our rule permitting cross-assignments without the necessity of a separate appeal must be read in the light of that higher law. The ruling must be properly before the appellate court else it may not consider whether the ruling be correct.
The order is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hollywood, Inc. v. Clark
... ... We have no jurisdiction over such original ... decree. Therefore we cannot consider the cross assignments of ... error directed to it. Burr v. Powell, 63 Fla. 379, ... 58 So. 29; Judson Lumber Corp. v. Patterson, 68 Fla ... 100, 66 So. 727; Co-Operative Homestead Co. v ... ...
-
City of Palmetto v. Katsch
... ... order, yet an appeal from a final decree brings up all ... interlocutory orders for consideration. Burr v ... Powell, 63 Fla. 379, 58 So. 29; McCall v. Lee, ... 66 Fla. 14, 62 So. 902 ... Appellant ... assigns several grounds of error, ... ...
-
Pingree v. De Haven
... ... consideration of this court the propriety of all decrees made ... prior to the entry of the final decree. Burr v ... Powell, 63 Fla. 379, 58 So. 29, McCall v. Lee, ... 66 Fla. 14, 62 So. 902. This rule also applies to appeals ... based on decree pro ... ...
-
Mcewen v. Growers' Loan & Guaranty Co.
...an appeal from one interlocutory order, cross-assignments of error upon other interlocutory orders will not be considered.' Burr v. Powell, 63 Fla. 379, 58 So. 29. Upon appeal from one interlocutory order in order to entitle the appellee to insist upon and present cross-assignments of error......