Leslie Bros. v. Roope
| Decision Date | 14 February 1933 |
| Parties | LESLIE BROS., Inc. v. ROOPE et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 22, 1933.
Suit by Leslie Bros., Inc., against George W. Roope and wife, and others. From a decree of dismissal, complainant appeals.
Modified and affirmed.
BROWN J., dissenting. Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Uly O. Thompson, judge.
Shutts & Bowen, of Miami, for appellant.
Collins & Collins, of Miami, for appellees.
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said decree it is, therefore, considered, ordered, and adjudged by the court that the said decree of the circuit court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.
DISSENTING CONCURRING
I concur in affirming the decree appealed from for the reasons given in the memorandum opinion filed by Judge Freeland and appearing in the record. I do not think the court below would have been warranted in declaring the levy of the attachment to be null and void merely because Leslie Bros., Inc., was, at the time of filing the bill, the fee-simple owner of the property. The real issue in the case was whether or not Woodbury was owner, or trustee for the owner, with relation to the attachment. But the bill was prosecuted on a different theory, and properly dismissed.
On Petition for Rehearing.
The final decree herein was affirmed by a memorandum decision entered on February 14, 1933, no opinion being written.
The decree that was affirmed was to the effect that the defendant George W. Roope had an attachment lien against the land described in the bill of complaint, by reason of his attachment proceedings, superior to the claims of all other parties to the cause. It was also found that the defendant George W. Roope and the sheriff of Dade county acting under his instructions should be held authorized to proceed to enforce the attachment and judgment thereon, unless same should be duly paid.
The case of Johnston v. Smith, 76 Fla. 474, 80 So. 184 involved an attempt by attachment at law to subject trust property to the payment of debts against it. It was there held that the proceedings should have been in equity, and not by action at law with attachment. In this case there was no attachment of the debtor's trust property for debts against it, but the attachment was levied on property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hargrave v. Dugger
...v. State, 155 So.2d 368 (Fla.1963) (initial presentation of matter on rehearing was improper) (footnote omitted); Leslie Bros. v. Roope, 108 Fla. 289, 148 So. 212 (1933) (supreme court will not on petition for rehearing after affirmance, reopen case to permit presentation of different theor......
-
Hargrave v. Wainwright
...v. State, 155 So.2d 368 (Fla.1963) (initial presentation of matter on rehearing was improper) (footnote omitted); Leslie Bros. v. Roope, 108 Fla. 289, 148 So. 212 (1933) (supreme court will not, on petition for rehearing after affirmance, reopen case to permit presentation of different theo......
-
Rety v. Green
...that position and launch an entirely new appeal or cross appeal from the subject order on a motion for rehearing. Leslie Bros. v. Roope, 108 Fla. 289, 148 So. 212 (Fla.), aff'd, 112 Fla. 734, 150 So. 804 (Fla.1933); Cartee v. Florida Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 354 So.2d 81, 83......
-
State v. Casper
...to raise new matters on petition for rehearing. See O'Steen v. State, 92 Fla. 1062, 111 So. 725 (1926); Leslie Bros., Inc. v. Roope, 108 Fla. 289, 148 So. 212 (1933), adhered to 112 Fla. 734, 150 So. 804. The precise issue presented by this appeal is whether the evidence in a light most fav......