Kusens v. Johannesburg

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kusens v. Johannesburg

207 So. 2d 468, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5927

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 20, 1968

DocketNos. 67-529, 67-530

StatusPublished

This text of 207 So. 2d 468 (Kusens v. Johannesburg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kusens v. Johannesburg, 207 So. 2d 468, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5927 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By these consolidated appeals, the appellants seek review of two orders entered subsequent to the mandate going down in Kusens v. Johannesburg, Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 468. One of these orders discharged the escrow agent referred to in the cited case. The other dismissed an amended complaint for partition.

The orders under review arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. Dade County v. Pepper, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 198; Althouse v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 859; Coleman v. Coleman, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 460. It was incumbent upon the appellants to make error appear. Easton v. Weir, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 1; City of South Bay v. Armstrong, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 21. Measuring the orders complained of in light of these principles, we find no error in the order discharging the escrow agent [see: McFadden v. Swinerton, 36 Or. 336, 59 P. 816, 62 P. 12; Golden v. O’Connell, 76 W.Va. 282, 85 S.E. 533; 2 A.L.R. 463], and no error in the order dismissing the amended complaint for partition. The issue of the right of the appellant, Lois Kusens, [469]*469to an interest in the title to the property involved was raised in the earlier proceeding and ruled on adversely to her. See: McKinnon v. Johnson, 57 Fla. 120, 48 So. 910; Pavlis v. Atlas-Imperial Diesel Engine Co., 126 Fla. 808, 172 So. 57; Gordon v. Gordon, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 40.

Therefore, we find no error in the orders here under review and same are hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

By these consolidated appeals, the appellants seek review of two orders entered subsequent to the mandate going down in Kusens v. Johannesburg, Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 468. One of these orders discharged the escrow agent referred to in the cited case. The other dismissed an amended complaint for partition.

The orders under review arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. Dade County v. Pepper, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 198; Althouse v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 859; Coleman v. Coleman, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 460. It was incumbent upon the appellants to make error appear. Easton v. Weir, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 1; City of South Bay v. Armstrong, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 21. Measuring the orders complained of in light of these principles, we find no error in the order discharging the escrow agent [see: McFadden v. Swinerton, 36 Or. 336, 59 P. 816, 62 P. 12; Golden v. O’Connell, 76 W.Va. 282, 85 S.E. 533; 2 A.L.R. 463], and no error in the order dismissing the amended complaint for partition. The issue of the right of the appellant, Lois Kusens, [469]*469to an interest in the title to the property involved was raised in the earlier proceeding and ruled on adversely to her. See: McKinnon v. Johnson, 57 Fla. 120, 48 So. 910; Pavlis v. Atlas-Imperial Diesel Engine Co., 126 Fla. 808, 172 So. 57; Gordon v. Gordon, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 40.

Therefore, we find no error in the orders here under review and same are hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 So. 2d 468, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kusens-v-johannesburg-fladistctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack