Mccormick v. Bond
| Decision Date | 26 April 1918 |
| Citation | 75 Fla. 819,78 So. 681 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | McCORMICK v. BOND et al. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Volusia County; J. W. Perkins, Judge.
Bill by E. A. McCormick against M. M. Bond and others, County Commissioners of Volusia County, and another. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the bill denying a temporary restraining order and allowing time for amendment, and on failure ordering that the bill stand dismissed at the cost of complainant, he appeals. Appeal dismissed.
Syllabus by the Court
Where an appeal from an interlocutory order denying an injunction will be fruitless, the appeal from such order may be dismissed.
COUNSEL Stewart & Stewart, of De Land, for appellant.
Landis, Fish & Hull, of De Land, for appellees.
The complainant filed his bill against the county commissioners of Volusia county and Harvey Jones, the successful bidder, to whom a contract was awarded by said county commissioners for the care and guarding of the county convicts while at work on the public roads of the county.
The prayer of the bill is that the contract be adjudged and decreed to be null and void, and that the said commissioners be commanded, by an appropriate writ of injunction, to award said contract to complainant, who was also a bidder therefor.
Demurrers to the bill were sustained, a temporary restraining order was denied, complainant was allowed ten days within which to amend his bill, and upon his failure so to do it was ordered that the bill stand dismissed at the cost of complainant.
From this order an appeal was taken to this court.
It appears from the record that the contract referred to was to run for a period of one year beginning November 6, 1916. The time covered by the contract has therefore expired, and nothing can be accomplished by the suit. This being true, the appeal will be dismissed. McKeown v. Evans, 73 Fla. 34, 73 So. 841.
It is so ordered.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greene v. State, 39453
...me the better practice would dictate a dismissal of this case. See DuBose v. Meister, 92 Fla. 995, 110 So. 546 (1943); McCormick v. Bond, 75 Fla. 819, 78 So. 681 (1918); Barrs v. Peacock, 65 Fla. 12, 61 So. 118 Although this Court has in the past indicated it will retain jurisdiction to det......
- Brickell v. Town of Ft. Lauderdale
-
Wells v. Cochrane
... ... State ex rel. Williams, 86 Fla. 361, 98 So ... 70; Yent v. State ex rel. Richardson, 66 Fla. 336, ... 63 So. 452, 49 L.R.A.,N.S., 1204; McCormick v. Bond, ... 75 Fla. 819, 78 So. 681; DuBose v. Meister, 92 Fla ... 995, 110 So. 546 ... It is ... contended that this Court should ... ...
-
Bliven v. Turville, 255
...the appeal in this case be dismissed as the subject matter is now moot. See DeHoff v. Imeson, 153 Fla. 553, 15 So.2d 258; McCormick v. Bond, 75 Fla. 819, 78 So. 681; DuBose v. Meister, 92 Fla. 995, 110 So. ALLEN, Acting Chief Judge, and THORNAL and BARKER, Associate Judges, concur. ...