Eisenburg v. Cornblum

Decision Date18 December 1945
Citation156 Fla. 702,24 So.2d 236
PartiesEISENBURG v. CORNBLUM.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied Jan. 14, 1946.

Hoffman & Durant, of Miami, for petitioners.

McKay Dixon & DeJarnette, and Keen & O'Kelley, of Tallahassee, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The Circuit Court of Dade County, on January 10, 1945, entered a final decree in the case at bar, subject to an accounting between the parties to be had at a subsequent date. An appeal therefrom to this Court was perfected and, upon consideration thereof, the decree appealed from was by an appropriate order and judgment of this Court duly affirmed, 22 So.2d 627. The cause was returned to the Circuit Court of Dade County and when the parties were before the Court the following motion and order were made and entered:

'Comes now the plaintiff, by his undersigned attorneys, and shows unto the Court that the final decree referred this cause to the special master for the purpose of making an accounting and that it is necessary in making such accounting to determine the amount of damages, if any, which the plaintiff has sustained by reason of the wrongful detention of the hotel premises by the defendants and plaintiff, therefore respectfully prays that the final decree be amended by adding thereto the language:

"and the master is instructed, in connection with the accounting between the parties, to ascertain the damages, if any, which the plaintiff has suffered by reason of the wrongful detention of the hotel premises."

'The above cause coming on before me to be heard upon the plaintiff's motion to amend the final decree heretofore filed herein, and after hearing argument of counsel and the court being fully advised in the premises, it is considered ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that said motion be and the same is hereby granted and the decree is hereby amended as prayed.'

On petitions here for interlocutory certiorari under Rule 34, it is contended that the amendment of the final decree was erroneous for various reasons. It is indisputable that on the appeal here the final decree made and entered in the lower court became the judgment of this Court, and therefore the court below was without authority to enter the challenged order without first having obtained the permission of this Court to so change alter, or modify its judgment. See Baskin v. Klemm, 118 Fla. 657, 160 So. 509; State ex rel. Budd v Williams, 152 Fla. 189, 11...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State ex rel. Tobin v. Holt, 59-662
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 7 Enero 1960
    ...of Eleventh Judicial Circuit, 140 Fla. 378, 191 So. 699; State ex rel. Budd v. Williams, 152 Fla. 189, 11 So.2d 341; Eisenburg v. Cornblum, 156 Fla. 702, 24 So.2d 236; Berger v. Leposky, Fla.1958, 103 So.2d 628, As early as 1897 in the case of Bloxham v. Florida Cent. & P. R. Co., supra (22......
  • Manning v. Clark
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 16 Marzo 1954
    ...discussed in New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Utility Battery Mfg. Co., supra. Also see the three opinions in the case of Eisenburg v. Cornblum, 156 Fla. 702, 24 So.2d 236; Id., 157 Fla. 372, 26 So.2d 49; Id., 158 Fla. 177, 28 So.2d 256. The fact that no bond was posted by the appellees does n......
  • Acme Speciality Corp. v. City of Miami, 73--938
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 26 Marzo 1974
    ...of the mandate of this court, which was not subject to interference without the specific permission of this court. Eisenburg v. Cornblum, 156 Fla. 702, 24 So.2d 236; Fairfax Broadcasting Company v. Florida Airmotive, Inc., Fla.App.1971, 252 So.2d 854; Lesperance v. Lesperance, Fla.App.1971,......
  • Fairfax Broadcasting Co. v. Florida Airmotive, Inc., 71--20
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 5 Octubre 1971
    ...to change, modify or alter the judgment without first having obtained authorization of the appellate court. Eisenburg v. Cornblum, 1945, 156 Fla. 702, 24 So.2d 236. In the case sub judice, the judgment previously appealed was a partial summary judgment rather than a final judgment as in Cit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT