National Bank v. Newheart

41 Fla. 470
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided June 15, 1899·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam :

This cause coining on for adjudication upon a rehearing thereof heretofore granted, and it appearing to the court that the decree appealed from is a joint decree against the only appellant before the court and several others who are- not made parties to the appeal except by the use of the abbreviation “et al.,” which is ineffectual, and that said several omitted parties are necessary parties appellant,.and can not now be brought in as parties appellant because the time has expired in which they can take an appeal, it is, therefore, ordered that the appeal in said cause be, and the same is, hereby dismissed. State ex rel. Andreu v. Canfield, 40 Fla. 36, 23 South. Rep. 591; Cornell v. Franklin, 40 Fla. 149, 23 South. Rep. 589; Whitlock v. Willard, 18 Fla. 156; Castleman v. Holmes, 7 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 591.

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

National Bank v. Newheart, 41 Fla. 470 (Fla. 1899).

41 Fla. 470 (National Bank v. Newheart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brown, Et Ux. v. City of Palatka
181 So. 529 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
Walker Fert. Co., Inc. v. Race
166 So. 283 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
Brooks v. Miami Bank & Trust Co.
155 So. 157 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1934)
Clark v. Rosenwald
230 P. 378 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1924)
Lessic ex rel. Floyd v. Booske
86 Fla. 251 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1923)
Vincent v. Hines
84 So. 614 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1920)