Vosges Syndicate v. Everglades Club Co.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation124 Fla. 120,168 So. 859
PartiesVOSGES SYNDICATE, Limited, et al. v. EVERGLADES CLUB CO. et al.
Decision Date31 March 1936

168 So. 859

124 Fla. 120

VOSGES SYNDICATE, Limited, et al.
v.
EVERGLADES CLUB CO. et al.

Florida Supreme Court

March 31, 1936


Rehearing Denied May 4, 1936.

Suit by the Vosges Syndicate, Limited, and others against the Everglades Club Company and others. From the decree, the complainants appeal.

Affirmed.

En Banc. [168 So. 860] [124 Fla. 121] Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; C. E. Chillingworth, judge.

COUNSEL

H. J. O'Neill, of New York City, and Jos. S. White, S. C. Kearley, and J. Leo Chapman, all of West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Fraser, Effler, Shumaker & Winn and H. W. Fraser, all of Toledo, Ohio, and Winters, Foskett & Wilcox and Bert Winters, all of West Palm Beach, for appellees.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

On May 14, 1935, the circuit court of Palm Beach county entered a decree, the substantial portions of which read as follows:

'This cause was duly presented by counsel for the parties upon final hearing held May 10, 1935. I have again examined the record in this case, and particularly the findings of the court recited in the order of November 10, 1933
'In the light of the present record I am quite willing now to adopt that expression of my views as they exist at the present time, with the exception of the inference that the record now warrants the foreclosure of the first mortgage bond issue by the plaintiffs in this suit.
'This suit was started August 10, 1933. Approximately twenty-one months elapsed before it was presented for a final hearing. During six months the suit remained practically dormant, while a foreclosure suit in the Federal [124 Fla. 122] Court was pressed. The Federal Court suit resulted in a final decree of foreclosure of the property involved in this suit and embraced under the same trust deed.
'There seems to be no need for another final decree of foreclosure.
'Plaintiffs seek further relief in endeavoring to have the Trustees removed and to have them charged by reason of certain breaches of trust. It now appears that the Federal Court has jurisdiction of the res as well as jurisdiction over the person of the Trustees, while this Court has no jurisdiction over the Trustees, and probably has no jurisdiction over the res in view of the orders heretofore entered by this Court with reference to the property.
'It would seem that no useful purpose would be served by any attempt of this Court to remove the Trustees
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • City of Jacksonville v. Waldrep
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • January 16, 1953
    ...Co. v. Perry, supra. In the case of King v. Weis-Patterson Lumber Co. supra, we stated the rule in the following language [124 Fla. 272, 168 So. 859]: 'Where circumstantial evidence is relied on in a civil case to prove an essential fact or circumstance essential to recovery, the rule is th......
  • King v. Weis-patterson Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 14, 1936
    ...Lumber Company. To review a judgment on a directed verdict for defendant, plaintiff brings error. Reversed for a new trial. COUNSEL [168 So. 859] [124 Fla. 272] Forsyth Care and Churchill Mellen, both of Pensacola, for plaintiff in error. Watson & Pasco & Brown, of Pensacola, for defendant ......
2 cases
  • City of Jacksonville v. Waldrep
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • January 16, 1953
    ...Co. v. Perry, supra. In the case of King v. Weis-Patterson Lumber Co. supra, we stated the rule in the following language [124 Fla. 272, 168 So. 859]: 'Where circumstantial evidence is relied on in a civil case to prove an essential fact or circumstance essential to recovery, the rule is th......
  • King v. Weis-patterson Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 14, 1936
    ...Lumber Company. To review a judgment on a directed verdict for defendant, plaintiff brings error. Reversed for a new trial. COUNSEL [168 So. 859] [124 Fla. 272] Forsyth Care and Churchill Mellen, both of Pensacola, for plaintiff in error. Watson & Pasco & Brown, of Pensacola, for defendant ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT