Fisher v. Rando

Supreme Court of Florida

Fisher v. Rando

17 So. 2d 789, 154 Fla. 408, 1944 Fla. LEXIS 718

DecidedMay 5, 1944

StatusPublished

This text of 17 So. 2d 789 (Fisher v. Rando) 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

Fisher v. Rando, 17 So. 2d 789, 154 Fla. 408, 1944 Fla. LEXIS 718 (Fla. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court granting a motion to dismiss an amended bill. The bill, among other things, sought an injunction. While the allegations of fact are not as clear and exact as they might be, it appears that the appellants were entitled to injunctive relief to protect their possession of the property involved until such time as their right to possession, vel non, might be determined by *409 the judgment of the county judge’s court. It is not necessary for us to determine here whether or not appellants are entitled to maintain an action for damages in a proper court against appellee for interference with appellants’ possession of, and the conduct of their business in, the premises involved.

The decree is therefore reversed with directions for further proceedings consistent with the above ruling.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

BUFORD, C. J., BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court granting a motion to dismiss an amended bill. The bill, among other things, sought an injunction. While the allegations of fact are not as clear and exact as they might be, it appears that the appellants were entitled to injunctive relief to protect their possession of the property involved until such time as their right to possession, vel non, might be determined by *409 the judgment of the county judge’s court. It is not necessary for us to determine here whether or not appellants are entitled to maintain an action for damages in a proper court against appellee for interference with appellants’ possession of, and the conduct of their business in, the premises involved.

The decree is therefore reversed with directions for further proceedings consistent with the above ruling.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

BUFORD, C. J., BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 So. 2d 789, 154 Fla. 408, 1944 Fla. LEXIS 718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fisher-v-rando-fla-1944.