Atwell v. Atwell

149 So. 555, 111 Fla. 352, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 1984
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJuly 10, 1933
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 149 So. 555 (Atwell v. Atwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Atwell v. Atwell, 149 So. 555, 111 Fla. 352, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 1984 (Fla. 1933).

Opinion

Bueord, J.

Final decree was entered by the Chancellor pursuant to an order of reference to and report of special master and filed on the 25th day of May, 1931, which decree found the equities to be with the defendant and dismissed the Bill of Complaint.

This decree was subject to review on appeal to the Supreme Court.

On June 30th, 1931, after the time had expired in which motion for rehearing could be filed under Rule 90 of rules governing equity practice in circuit courts, complainant filed motion for rehearing which was granted and thereafter final decree was entered in favor of complainant.

From this final decree the case is now before us on appeal. There are several questions presented, but it is only necessary and proper for us to consider the first question, which is, “Whether or not the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to enter an order granting a rehearing when the motion for rehearing had not been presented within thirty days from the date of the filing of the final decree, which final decree was *353 a decree which could be reviewed on appeal by the Supreme Court.”

Our judgment is that the Circuit Court at the expiration of thirty days after the filing and recording of the final decree lost jurisdiction of the cause and was without jurisdiction to enter the order granting the rehearing. It follows that all orders and decrees made subsequent to the order granting the rehearing were of no force and effect. See Mabson v. Christ, 96 Fla. 756, 119 Sou. 131 and cases there cited.

For this reason, the decree appealed from should be reversed and it is so ordered.

Reversed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Brown, J. J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

I. B. L. Corp. v. Pan American Bank, N.A.
402 So. 2d 82 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Investment Corp. v. Florida Thoroughbred Breeders Ass'n
256 So. 2d 227 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)
Frumkes v. Mortgage Guarantee Corp.
173 So. 2d 738 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)
Galloway v. Musgrave
154 So. 2d 846 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)
Smith v. Smith
98 So. 2d 897 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1957)
Scheuermann v. Shamas
97 So. 2d 314 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1957)
Bartlett & Sons Co. v. Pan-American Studios, Inc.
198 So. 195 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
149 So. 555, 111 Fla. 352, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 1984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atwell-v-atwell-fla-1933.