Gill v. Smith

Supreme Court of Florida

Gill v. Smith

161 So. 282, 119 Fla. 293

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMay 10, 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 161 So. 282 (Gill v. Smith) 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

Gill v. Smith, 161 So. 282, 119 Fla. 293 (Fla. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is the second appeal in this cause. Gill v. Smith, 117 Fla. 176, 157 Sou. Rep. 657. The case *294 is now before this Court on a motion by appellee to dismiss the appeal as frivolous and to assess 10% damages against appellants in accordance with the applicable statute. In re: Benedict's Estate, 117 Fla. 472, 158 Sou. Rep. 276; Section 4639 C. G. L., 2920 R. G. S., 4965 C. G. L.. 3173 R. G. S. Appellant has subsequently moved for a voluntary dismissal of his own appeal without prejudice, as provided for by our rule. Thompson v. Filer, 99 Fla. 539, 126 Sou. Rep. 766; Supreme Court, Rule 23.

The motion of appellee to dismiss the appeal as frivolous and to assess damages as for a frivolous appeal having been first filed is entitled' to consideration at the hands of this Court despite the motion of appellant for a voluntary dismissal of his own appeal without prejudice. In lieu of dismissing an appeal as frivolous we may affirm the decree, order or judgment appealed from, where the time of the appellate court has been required to be given over to a study of the record and briefs in order to decide the motion and it has been made clearly apparent to it from such study that no good purpose will be subserved by continuing the appeal on the Supreme Court’s docket, notwithstanding the appeal cannot be characterized as frivolous' within the rule governing dismissal of or quashing frivolous appeal. Holtsberg v. McCarty, 117 Fla. 554, 158 Sou. Rep. 123.

A study of the record and briefs in this case has convinced us that while the appeal herein is not frivolous, the orders appealed from are without error and should accordingly be affirmed under the rule last above stated, with leave to appellee to include the costs of the transcript as advanced by him in the taxable costs allowed to him on this appeal.

Affirmed and remanded.

Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur. *295 Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

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

Per Curiam.

This is the second appeal in this cause. Gill v. Smith, 117 Fla. 176, 157 Sou. Rep. 657. The case *294 is now before this Court on a motion by appellee to dismiss the appeal as frivolous and to assess 10% damages against appellants in accordance with the applicable statute. In re: Benedict's Estate, 117 Fla. 472, 158 Sou. Rep. 276; Section 4639 C. G. L., 2920 R. G. S., 4965 C. G. L.. 3173 R. G. S. Appellant has subsequently moved for a voluntary dismissal of his own appeal without prejudice, as provided for by our rule. Thompson v. Filer, 99 Fla. 539, 126 Sou. Rep. 766; Supreme Court, Rule 23.

The motion of appellee to dismiss the appeal as frivolous and to assess damages as for a frivolous appeal having been first filed is entitled' to consideration at the hands of this Court despite the motion of appellant for a voluntary dismissal of his own appeal without prejudice. In lieu of dismissing an appeal as frivolous we may affirm the decree, order or judgment appealed from, where the time of the appellate court has been required to be given over to a study of the record and briefs in order to decide the motion and it has been made clearly apparent to it from such study that no good purpose will be subserved by continuing the appeal on the Supreme Court’s docket, notwithstanding the appeal cannot be characterized as frivolous' within the rule governing dismissal of or quashing frivolous appeal. Holtsberg v. McCarty, 117 Fla. 554, 158 Sou. Rep. 123.

A study of the record and briefs in this case has convinced us that while the appeal herein is not frivolous, the orders appealed from are without error and should accordingly be affirmed under the rule last above stated, with leave to appellee to include the costs of the transcript as advanced by him in the taxable costs allowed to him on this appeal.

Affirmed and remanded.

Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur. *295 Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 So. 282, 119 Fla. 293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gill-v-smith-fla-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack