Rosenberg v. Novack

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rosenberg v. Novack

112 So. 2d 60, 1959 Fla. App. LEXIS 2913

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 19, 1959

DocketNo. 58-253

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 112 So. 2d 60 (Rosenberg v. Novack) 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

Rosenberg v. Novack, 112 So. 2d 60, 1959 Fla. App. LEXIS 2913 (Fla. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

An appeal was taken by minority stockholders from a summary final decree directing specific performance of a contract for repurchase by two Florida corporations of stock in the corporations held by the “Kirkeby group”. Upon denial of petition for rehearing, the latter group then complied with the decree, and two of the five appellants have withdrawn and been dismissed from this appeal. Appellants argued principally that the lower court should have held the contract unenforceable under F.S. § 608.13(9) (a) (b), F.S.A. The record and authorities contained in the briefs of the parties have been carefully considered upon this point, and the court has concluded that the position of appellants is without merit.

However, since the decree makes no disposition of the appellants’ cross-bill, the lower court is directed to hear the same and enter its decree upon such issues as remain.

The decree otherwise appearing without error, it is affirmed, with directions.

CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., HORTON,. J., and WARREN, LAMAR, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

An appeal was taken by minority stockholders from a summary final decree directing specific performance of a contract for repurchase by two Florida corporations of stock in the corporations held by the “Kirkeby group”. Upon denial of petition for rehearing, the latter group then complied with the decree, and two of the five appellants have withdrawn and been dismissed from this appeal. Appellants argued principally that the lower court should have held the contract unenforceable under F.S. § 608.13(9) (a) (b), F.S.A. The record and authorities contained in the briefs of the parties have been carefully considered upon this point, and the court has concluded that the position of appellants is without merit.

However, since the decree makes no disposition of the appellants’ cross-bill, the lower court is directed to hear the same and enter its decree upon such issues as remain.

The decree otherwise appearing without error, it is affirmed, with directions.

CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., HORTON,. J., and WARREN, LAMAR, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 So. 2d 60, 1959 Fla. App. LEXIS 2913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenberg-v-novack-fladistctapp-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack