Lessic v. Booske

• Decision Date: 30 July 1923
• Citation: Lessic v. Booske, 86 Fla. 251, 97 So. 383 (Fla. 1923)
• Parties: LESSIC et al. v. BOOSKE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

97 So. 383

86 Fla. 251

LESSIC et al. v. BOOSKE.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

July 30, 1923

Suit by A. Booske against George Lessic and others on behalf of Clarence Griggs Floyd, a minor. From a decree for plaintiff defendants appeal.

On motion to dismiss appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Entry of appeal held ineffectual for misnomer of parties defendant. An attempted entry of an appeal in which the parties are named as 'A. Booske versus George Lessic et al., on behalf of Clarence Griggs Floyd, a minor,' is ineffectual as an appeal in the case of A. Booske, complainant, versus George Messic, Clarence Griggs Floyd, a minor, and William Floyd, his guardian ad litem, and Edith Messic, a minor, and Earl Hoffman, her guardian ad litem.

All parties jointly affected by joint decree appealed from necessary and should be individually named; parties jointly affected by joint decree appealed from cannot be included by abbreviation 'et al.'; parties appellant omitted from appeal cannot be made parties after expiration of statutory time for taking appeals. All parties jointly affected by a joint decree appealed from are necessary parties to such appeal, and should be individually named therein. They cannot be included in such appeal by the use of the abbreviation 'et al.' Parties appellant omitted from an appeal cannot be made parties thereto after the expiration of the time prescribed by law for taking appeals. Nat. Bank of Lancaster v. Newheart, 41 Fla. 470, 27 So. 297.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Escambia County; A. G Campbell, judge.

COUNSEL

Kent &amp Dewell, of Jacksonville, for appellants.

F. W. Marsh, of Pensacola, for appellee.

OPINION

WEST J.

The following is the entry of appeal, as shown by the record forwarded to this court:

'James Macgibbon, Clerk Circuit Court, Pensacola, Fla.

'You will please dismiss present appeal in case A. Booske versus George Lessic et al. and you will please enter new appeal in case A. Booske versus George Lessic et al. on behalf of Clarence Griggs Floyd a minor to Supreme Court of State of Florida to review decree of the circuit court of Escambia county, Fla., dated July sixth nineteen twenty-two in said cause set appeals are hereby made returnable on the thirty-first day of March nineteen twenty-three this message to us as notice of appeal.

Kent & Dewell.'

There is a motion by counsel for appellee, on special appearance for that purpose, to dismiss the appeal. Among the grounds upon which the dismissal is sought are: First, that the notice of the appeal refers to the parties as A. Booske versus George Lessic et al., whereas in fact, as shown by the record, the parties to the suit are A. Booske versus George Messic, Clarence Griggs Floyd, and Edith Messic et al.; second, that said appeal is ineffective because it is a second appeal, the record showing an undisposed of former appeal in the case.

In the final decree and anterior proceedings the parties are A Booske, complainant, versus George Messic, Clarence Griggs Floyd, a minor, and William Floyd, his guardian ad litem, and Edith Messic, a minor, and Earl Hoffman, her guardian ad litem. There is nothing in the record to indicate the identity of George Lessic et al. on behalf of Clarence Griggs Floyd, a minor, named...