McNary v. Hudson, 912
| Decision Date | 18 March 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 912,912 |
| Citation | 110 So.2d 73 |
| Parties | Robert R. McNARY et al., Appellants, v. Mary Porter HUDSON, as Adm., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Raymond C. Smith, Lakeland, for appellants.
Paul Ritter, Winter Haven, for appellees.
This court cannot consider on its merits the cause here presented by the appellants. This is due to a jurisdictional aspect which may be demonstrated through the sequence of steps here set forth, revealing that the order from which the appeal emanates is not reviewable.
On June 26, 1958, the chancellor entered an order of dismissal, decreeing '* * * that this cause be and it is hereby dismissed at the cost of the Plaintiffs.'
On July 2, 1958, petition for rehearing was filed.
On August 22, 1958, the court entered its order, as follows:
'Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed That said petition for rehearing is temporarily granted and said Order of June 26, 1958, be and it is hereby stayed, until further hearing * * *'
Then, on August 28, 1958, the court entered its order stating '* * * that the said petition for rehearing be and the same is hereby denied.'
On October 8, 1958, notice of appeal to this court was filed, stating:
What the appellants are here presenting is an appeal from the order denying the petition for rehearing and not an appeal from the final decree of dismissal. To determine the correctness of the ruling on the petition for rehearing would require a consideration of the final decree and the record upon which it is predicated. To do this would then call for a review of a decree on appeal that has not been made the subject of attack. Such procedure does not deposit the cause in this forum, there being no jurisdictional basis established for its consideration. The appeal will have to be dismissed. See Finley v. Finley, Fla.1958, 103 So.2d 191; Klemenko v. Klemenko, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 11; and section 59.02(2), F.S.A.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oxford v. Polk Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Lakeland
...200, 194 So. 481; Hollywood, Inc. v. Clark, 1943, 153 Fla. 501, 15 So.2d 175; Klemenko v. Klemenko, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 11; McNary v. Hudson, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 73; Moore v. Carlisle, Fla.App.1959, 111 So.2d 457. Such an order is, in effect, nonappealable where, as here, it presents no ......
-
Quackenbush v. Town of Palm Beach, 3437
...must therefore be dismissed. See Klemenko v. Klemenko, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 11; Finley v. Finley, Fla.1958, 103 So.2d 191; McNary v. Hudson, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 73; Oxford v. Polk Federal Savings & Loan Association of Lakeland, Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d Appeal dismissed. SHANNON, C. J., and......
-
Jones v. Wilson, 3118
...it was predicated. We have previously held that this cannot be done. See Taborsky v. Mathews, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 880; McNary v. Hudson, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 73. The decree sought to be appealed is neither a final decree nor an appealable interlocutory order. This appeal accordingly ......
-
Kaemmerlen v. Shannon, 1498
...the petition for rehearing. The appeal will have to be dismissed ex mero motu. Finley v. Finley, Fla.1958, 103 So.2d 191; McNary v. Hudson, Fla.App., 1959, 110 So.2d 73. Appeal ALLEN, C. J., and KANNER and SHANNON, JJ., concur. ...