Milgram v. Lee

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Milgram v. Lee

200 So. 2d 238, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4953

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 31, 1967

DocketNo. 66-565

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 200 So. 2d 238 (Milgram v. Lee) 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

Milgram v. Lee, 200 So. 2d 238, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4953 (Fla. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

SWANN, Judge.

In their brief on appeal, appellants have failed to state any “[s]pecific assignments of error from which the points argued arise.” Rule 3.7 subd. f(4), Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.; Applefield v. Commercial Standard Insurance Co., Fla.App. 1965, 176 So.2d 366. Appellee has noted this defect in his brief but has not moved to strike appellants’ brief. Without waiving his rights to strike, appellee has answered appellants’ points on appeal. Under these circumstances, we proceed to the merits.

Appellants claim that an improper person was appointed as receiver during the progress of the action. This is not a ground for reversal of a final decree based on a consideration of all the equities of the parties. Bird et al. v. Earle & Perkins, 15 Fla. 447 (1875); Cf. Edenfield v. Crisp, Fla. App.1966, 186 So.2d 545; 27 Fla.Jur. Receivers, § 20 p. 608.

Appellants’ second point on appeal has been examined and is denied, as there was sufficient, competent evidence before the chancellor to sustain his ruling. See: Farmers’ Bank & Trust Co. v. Palms Pub. Co., 86 Fla. 371, 98 So. 143 (1923); 20 Fla. Jur. Landlord and Tenant, §§ 24 and 136.

The third point on appeal has been examined and is, in our opinion, free of reversible error. A third person may seek equitable relief from a judgment obtained by fraud if they have a sufficient interest thereunder. Compare Protective Holding Corporation v. Cornwall Co., 127 Fla. 252, 173 So. 804 (1937). Here, the ap-pellee was both a creditor and a stockholder.

The final decree is therefore

Affirmed.

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

SWANN, Judge.

In their brief on appeal, appellants have failed to state any “[s]pecific assignments of error from which the points argued arise.” Rule 3.7 subd. f(4), Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.; Applefield v. Commercial Standard Insurance Co., Fla.App. 1965, 176 So.2d 366. Appellee has noted this defect in his brief but has not moved to strike appellants’ brief. Without waiving his rights to strike, appellee has answered appellants’ points on appeal. Under these circumstances, we proceed to the merits.

Appellants claim that an improper person was appointed as receiver during the progress of the action. This is not a ground for reversal of a final decree based on a consideration of all the equities of the parties. Bird et al. v. Earle & Perkins, 15 Fla. 447 (1875); Cf. Edenfield v. Crisp, Fla. App.1966, 186 So.2d 545; 27 Fla.Jur. Receivers, § 20 p. 608.

Appellants’ second point on appeal has been examined and is denied, as there was sufficient, competent evidence before the chancellor to sustain his ruling. See: Farmers’ Bank & Trust Co. v. Palms Pub. Co., 86 Fla. 371, 98 So. 143 (1923); 20 Fla. Jur. Landlord and Tenant, §§ 24 and 136.

The third point on appeal has been examined and is, in our opinion, free of reversible error. A third person may seek equitable relief from a judgment obtained by fraud if they have a sufficient interest thereunder. Compare Protective Holding Corporation v. Cornwall Co., 127 Fla. 252, 173 So. 804 (1937). Here, the ap-pellee was both a creditor and a stockholder.

The final decree is therefore

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 So. 2d 238, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milgram-v-lee-fladistctapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack