Roberts Bros. v. Langford
| Decision Date | 06 June 1930 |
| Citation | 128 So. 810,99 Fla. 1268 |
| Parties | ROBERTS BROS. et al. v. LANGFORD. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by Bertie Langford against Roberts Brothers, a corporation, and another. Decree for complainant, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Highlands County; W. J Barker, judge.
Leitner & Leitner, of Arcadia, for appellants.
Huffaker & Edwards, of Bartow, for appellee.
There are two motions submitted in the above cause, one relating to the sufficiency of the supersedeas bond and the other to the good faith of the appeal. The consideration of either motion necessitates an examination of the record and consideration of the questions there presented. As the briefs upon the merits are in, the court has decided to make a final disposition of the case.
Ordinarily the cause should take its place on the docket and be submitted in due course, but in view of the nature of the motions submitted, or which a due consideration necessitates as careful reading of the record as would be required on consideration of the case on its merits, we have decided to dispose of the case on its merits. We are somewhat constrained to follow this course because of the simplicity of the questions involved and the mass of written pages within which they lie concealed. One examination of the record should suffice for a final determination of the cause.
If we should be unable to say that it did not appear that the appeal was frivolous or taken in bad faith or that the terms of the supersedeas were not violated and the bond is adequate, the case would automatically take its place on the docket and be reached for consideration in about eight months or a year from this date when the record would have to be read again and the merits of the cause again considered, as the members of the court could not be expected to carry in their minds the details of the cause as presented. At that time it is reasonable to suppose that the court's judgment upon the merits of the cause would be the same as it is to-day. As the work has already been done and the judgment ready to be entered now, there is no reason nor necessity for postponing it a year doing the work all over and then entering a judgment which we can as well enter to-day.
We wish to say, however, that the disposition of this case must not be regarded by the profession as in any manner a suggestion that gentlemen of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Sams
...to the merits have been had, and no reason can be perceived for deferring the consideration of the case longer. Roberts Bros. v. Langford, 99 Fla. 1268, 128 So. 810; Green v. Cook, 102 Fla. 837, 136 So. 454; Knabb v. Mabry, 134 Fla. 244, 183 So. It cannot be said from a cursory examination ......
- State v. Parks
-
Williams v. Dunn
... ... foreclosing the mortgage. This holding does not conflict with ... the rule stated in Blount Bros. Realty Co. v ... Eilenberger, 98 Fla. 775, 124 So. 41 ... The ... suit was brought ... order quashing the appeal is vacated, and the decree appealed ... from is affirmed. See Roberts Bros. et al. v ... Langford, 99 Fla. 1268, 128 So. 810 ... Affirmed ... ...
-
Grand Lodge, K.P. of North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia, Jurisdiction of Florida v. Stroud
... ... be denied and the judgment affirmed on the principles stated ... by this court in Roberts Bros. v. Langford, 99 Fla ... 1268, 128 So. 810 ... Affirmed ... WHITFIELD, ... ...