Santona-Nervia Corp. v. Publix Market, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Santona-Nervia Corp. v. Publix Market, Inc.

146 So. 2d 394

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 13, 1962

DocketNo. 62-438

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 146 So. 2d 394 (Santona-Nervia Corp. v. Publix Market, Inc.) 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

Santona-Nervia Corp. v. Publix Market, Inc., 146 So. 2d 394 (Fla. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

BARKDULL, Judge.

This is an interlocutory appeal by a plaintiff below, seeking review of an order granting temporary injunction in its favor conditioned upon the posting of a $50,000.00 bond.

The injunction was obtained by the appellant-plaintiff. It appears that it was entered upon evidence taken before the chancellor which is not included in the record. There was no showing permitting the issuance of a temporary injunction without bond, pursuant to the provisions of § 64.03 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Therefore, the chancellor [having determined to issue the injunction] was required to fix the terms, conditions and amount of an injunction bond. The injunction stopped the completion of a supermarket in Coral Gables, Florida, and there does not appear to be any abuse of discretion by the chancellor in the fixing of a bond of $50,000.00.

Without the record of the proceedings before the chancellor being included in the .record, this court is not authorized to reverse nor amend the ruling complained of. See: Hall v. Davis, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 599; Insana v. Hasty, Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d 791; Downing v. Bird, Fla.App. 1962, 145 So.2d 559.

For the above stated reasons, the order here under review is affirmed..

Affirmed.

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

BARKDULL, Judge.

This is an interlocutory appeal by a plaintiff below, seeking review of an order granting temporary injunction in its favor conditioned upon the posting of a $50,000.00 bond.

The injunction was obtained by the appellant-plaintiff. It appears that it was entered upon evidence taken before the chancellor which is not included in the record. There was no showing permitting the issuance of a temporary injunction without bond, pursuant to the provisions of § 64.03 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Therefore, the chancellor [having determined to issue the injunction] was required to fix the terms, conditions and amount of an injunction bond. The injunction stopped the completion of a supermarket in Coral Gables, Florida, and there does not appear to be any abuse of discretion by the chancellor in the fixing of a bond of $50,000.00.

Without the record of the proceedings before the chancellor being included in the .record, this court is not authorized to reverse nor amend the ruling complained of. See: Hall v. Davis, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 599; Insana v. Hasty, Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d 791; Downing v. Bird, Fla.App. 1962, 145 So.2d 559.

For the above stated reasons, the order here under review is affirmed..

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 So. 2d 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santona-nervia-corp-v-publix-market-inc-fladistctapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack