Nichols & Johnson v. Frank
| Decision Date | 06 April 1910 |
| Citation | 59 Fla. 588,52 So. 146 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | NICHOLS & JOHNSON et al. v. FRANK et al. |
In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; J. B Wall, Judge.
Bill by W. L. Frank and others against Nichols & Johnson and others. Decree for complainants, and defendants appeal. Dismissed.
Syllabus by the Court
In equity appeals the appellants ask for a reversal of the decree appealed from, and they should have all interested parties before the court.
Where the appellate court is asked to determine the correctness of a decree on the main equities of the cause--e. g., the subjection of the land to the debts of creditors--all who are interested in and benefited by such decree are entitled to be heard, and should be before the court by proper proceedings if they were parties to the cause in the court below.
Where all the appellees directly and substantially interested in the main feature of a decree, on which the rights of all the appellees depend, are not before the court, so that complete justice may be done in orderly procedure, the court will decline to consider the merits of the cause, and dismiss the appeal.
Where all the appellees were before the court, but the cause was dismissed as to one of the appellees, the main equities of the cause, on which the rights of all the appellees depend will not be considered by the court, and the cause will be dismissed.
COUNSEL E. R. Gunby and W. H. Jackson, for appellants.
F. M Simonton, for appellees.
This appeal is from a decree setting aside a conveyance of land and subjecting the land to the debts of a partnership of which the grantor was a member. The appeal was dismissed as to one of the appellees, in whose favor the payment of a claim was included in the decree. Upon taking up the case for final disposition on the merits, it appears that the question to be determined is whether the land was rightly subjected to the payment of the debts of the firm, and not whether the amounts stated in the decree are properly adjudicated in favor of the several appellees.
In determining the correctness of the decree on the main equities of the case, to wit, the subjection of the land to the debts of creditors, all who are interested in and benefited by such decree are entitled to be heard. The appellants ask a reversal of the decree, and they should have all interested parties before the court....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. Cheyenne Cement Stone and Brick Company
... ... 881; Walsh ... v. Hill, (Ala.) 53 So. 746; Swafford v. Shirley, ... (Ga.) 66 S.E. 1022; Nichols v. Frank, (Fla.) 52 ... So. 146; Haymaker v. Schneck, 160 Ind. 443, 67 N.E ... 181; Bassett v ... ...
-
State ex rel. Inv. Corp. of South Fla. v. Board of Business Regulation
...made parties due process of law. Harison v. Ocala Building and Loan Association, 52 Fla. 522, 42 So. 696 (1906); Nichols and Johnson v. Frank, 59 Fla. 588, 52 So. 146 (1910); and Headley v. Lasseter, 147 So.2d 154 It is stated in Tibbetts v. Olson, 91 Fla. 824, 108 So. 679 (1926), 'The Cons......
-
Stovall v. Stovall
... ... the appeal will be dismissed. See Rawls v. Carlton, ... 56 Fla. 843, 48 So. 46; Nichols & Johnson v. Frank, ... 59 Fla. 588, 52 So. 146; Henry Vogt Mach. Co. v. Milton ... Land & ... ...
-
Henry Vogt Mach. Co. v. Milton Land & Inv. Co.
...be heard, and should be before the court by proper proceedings if they were parties to the cause in the court below. Nichols & Johnson v. Frank, 59 Fla. 588, 52 So. 146. The acknowledgment by counsel of service of a copy of the written directions to the clerk to make up the transcript, with......