Buchanan Bros. v. Smith

140 So. 775, 103 Fla. 1130
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided January 7, 1932·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Davis, J.

The final decree in this case should be affirmed on the authority of Lake Mabel Development Corp. v. Bird, 99 Fla. 253, 126 Sou. Rep. 356; Day v. Weadock, 101 Fla. 333, 134 Sou. Rep. 525, holding that a final decree in equity will be affirmed where entire ease shows errors, if any, in pleading or procedure, have not resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

But said decree should be modified so as to divide the *1131 costs and impose such costs, both in the lower court and in this court, equally upon complainants and defendants it appearing that neither of the adverse parties has been diligent in avoiding the necessity for the expenses of this litigation. Chandler v. Sherman, 16 Fla. 99.

Modified and affirmed.

Buford, C.J., and Whitfield and Ellis, J.J., concur.

Terrell, J., dissents.

Brown, J., not participating.

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

Buchanan Bros. v. Smith, 140 So. 775, 103 Fla. 1130 (Fla. 1932).

140 So. 775 (Buchanan Bros. v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Charles Sales Corp. v. Maxwell
224 So. 2d 752 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)
Gaulden v. Kirk
47 So. 2d 567 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1950)
State Ex Rel. Klemm v. Baskin
150 So. 517 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
State Ex Rel. Aldrich v. Mitchell
146 So. 207 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
State Ex Rel. East Side Bank v. Holloway
142 So. 221 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)