Nolan v. Eshleman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nolan v. Eshleman

176 So. 2d 559, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4295

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 28, 1965

DocketNo. 6112

StatusPublished

This text of 176 So. 2d 559 (Nolan v. Eshleman) 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

Nolan v. Eshleman, 176 So. 2d 559, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4295 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the trial, court verdict and judgment was rendered for the defendant and against the plaintiff. The judgment included costs assessed in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed. He did not pay the costs taxed against him in the judgment. He assigned as error the taxation of costs but has not superseded the judgment taxing costs. The time for filing assignments of error has passed. Time for filing the record on appeal in this court has not yet arrived. Ap-pellee moves to dismiss for failure of the appellant, original plaintiff, to comply with Florida Appellate Rule 3.2(f), 31 F.S.A.

The status of this case, the position of the parties and the arguments advanced by [560]*560them are identical to those set forth in the decision of the Third District in Abrahams v. Mimosa Company, Fla.App. 1965, 174 So.2d 82. We adopt the opinion of that court and hold that the plaintiff was required to post his supersedeas bond within the time limit for filing his assignments of error, and having failed to do so this appeal must be dismissed. We direct that such an order be entered.

SMITH, C. J., and ALLEN and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the trial, court verdict and judgment was rendered for the defendant and against the plaintiff. The judgment included costs assessed in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed. He did not pay the costs taxed against him in the judgment. He assigned as error the taxation of costs but has not superseded the judgment taxing costs. The time for filing assignments of error has passed. Time for filing the record on appeal in this court has not yet arrived. Ap-pellee moves to dismiss for failure of the appellant, original plaintiff, to comply with Florida Appellate Rule 3.2(f), 31 F.S.A.

The status of this case, the position of the parties and the arguments advanced by [560]*560them are identical to those set forth in the decision of the Third District in Abrahams v. Mimosa Company, Fla.App. 1965, 174 So.2d 82. We adopt the opinion of that court and hold that the plaintiff was required to post his supersedeas bond within the time limit for filing his assignments of error, and having failed to do so this appeal must be dismissed. We direct that such an order be entered.

SMITH, C. J., and ALLEN and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 So. 2d 559, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nolan-v-eshleman-fladistctapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack