Bailey v. Newman

144 So. 392, 107 Fla. 194
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedNovember 8, 1932
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 144 So. 392 (Bailey v. Newman) 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
Bailey v. Newman, 144 So. 392, 107 Fla. 194 (Fla. 1932).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon a motion to dismiss this appeal because it is frivolous, and subject to being quashed under Section 4639 C. G. L., 2920 R. G. S., the Court has been compelled to read and consider the briefs and record in the case.

From such examination of the briefs on the merits, which have all been filed, and from our inspection of the transcript of the record, the Court has reached the conclusion that the decree of foreclosure appealed from must inevitably be affirmed on the authority of Fagg Mill Work & Lbr. Co. v. Greer, 102 Fla. 955, 136 Sou. Rep. 679; Catlett v. White, 102 Fla. 110, 135 Sou. Rep. 565.

Therefore the motion to quash the appeal as frivolous is denied and the decree appealed from is affirmed on the authority of Grand Lodge K. of P. v. Goodall, decided at the present term, and Roberts Bros. v. Langford, 99 Fla. 1268, 128 Sou. Rep. 810.

Motion to quash appeal as frivolous denied and decree affirmed.

Whitfield, P.J. and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur. Buford, C.J. and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

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

Related

Krueger v. Nobles
149 So. 801 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
144 So. 392, 107 Fla. 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-newman-fla-1932.