Green v. Cook
| Decision Date | 07 August 1931 |
| Citation | 136 So. 454,102 Fla. 837 |
| Parties | GREEN et al. v. COOK. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
En Banc.
Suit by B. H. Cook against Spencer B. Green and another. From an order granting a motion to strike certain portions of the answer and from an order denying defendants leave to further amend their answer, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court.
'Although the appellate court, upon a motion to dismiss an appeal upon the ground that it is frivolous, will make only a superficial examination of the record for the purpose of ascertaining whether any questions are presented which may be considered debatable, yet, when such examination reveals no substantial error in the proceedings and the court is satisfied of the correctness of the judgment or decree attacked, and can perceive no reason for deferring the consideration of the case and the briefs are filed and the cause ready to be submitted, the court will, by affirmance of the decree or judgment, finally dispose of the appeal.' Roberts Brothers v. Langford, 99 Fla. 1268, 128 So. 810. Appeal from Circuit Court, Volusia County; M G. Rowe, Judge.
Sholtz Green & West, of Daytona Beach, for appellants.
F. W. Pope, of Daytona Beach, for appellee.
This case is before the court on motion to dismiss the appeal because the plaintiffs in error failed to comply with amended rule 20 in the preparation of their brief, and also upon the ground 'that said appeal was frivolous and was not taken by appellants in good faith, but was taken by the appellants for the sole purpose of delaying the final adjudication of the cause on its merits.'
Appellants were allowed to file an amended brief to conform to the provisions of amended rule 20. The amended brief does not comply with the provisions of the amended rule 20 in stating the questions involved, but as it appears that a real effort was made to comply with the rule in this respect and as members of the bar have not been fully advised as to the construction given by the court to the language of the rule we are not inclined to dismiss the cause because of the lack of strict compliance in this regard.
On consideration of the motion to dismiss because the appeal is frivolous, it has been necessary for us to look to the transcript of the record and consider the questions there presented, and as the brief on behalf of the appellant is before the court, we have decided to make final disposition of the case, as was done in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Sams
...can be perceived for deferring the consideration of the case longer. Roberts Bros. v. Langford, 99 Fla. 1268, 128 So. 810; Green v. Cook, 102 Fla. 837, 136 So. 454; Knabb v. Mabry, 134 Fla. 244, 183 So. It cannot be said from a cursory examination of the record that the appeal is so devoid ......
- Little River Bank & Trust Co. v. Johnson
-
Crichlow v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S.
...when an appeal is taken against good faith and merely for delay. See Norfleet Holding Co. v. Price, 101 Fla. 666, 132 So. 643; Green v. Cook (Fla.) 136 So. 454. This being made by the appellee before the return day of the appeal, was accompanied by a complete transcript of the record in the......
-
Holtsberg v. Mccarty
... ... court heretofore followed in the cases of Roberts Bros ... v. Langford, 99 Fla. 1268, 128 So. 810; Green v ... Cook, 102 Fla. 837, 136 So. 454, and kindred cases ... recently decided by this court, the decree appealed from will ... be affirmed at ... ...