W. Klang & Son, Inc. v. Milar Galleries, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

W. Klang & Son, Inc. v. Milar Galleries, Inc.

328 So. 2d 510, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14886

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 24, 1976

DocketNo. 75-1518

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 328 So. 2d 510 (W. Klang & Son, Inc. v. Milar Galleries, 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

W. Klang & Son, Inc. v. Milar Galleries, Inc., 328 So. 2d 510, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14886 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This interlocutory appeal involves the propriety of an order denying a motion to intervene. Milar Galleries, Inc., a retail jewelry dealer, filed an action against its insuror, following a loss from burglary. Included in the lost property involved were certain items owned by the appellant W. Klang & Son, Inc., a manufacturer and wholesaler of jewelry, which the record shows the latter had sold to the former on consignment. Intervention by the appellant would enable it to be apprised of proceedings in the action, and to timely and effectively assert its claim to any portion of the proceeds or payment resulting from the action to which it would become entitled in event it was found therein that the insurance covered the loss, including Klang’s consigned property. As the owner-consignor of property for loss of which its consignee sought recovery from the in-suror, Klang had an interest in the litiga-tioh sufficient to entitle it to intervene. See Morgareidge v. Howey, 75 Fla. 234, 78 So. 14, 15; Miracle House Corporation v. Haige, Fla., 96 So.2d 417.

The order appealed from is reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This interlocutory appeal involves the propriety of an order denying a motion to intervene. Milar Galleries, Inc., a retail jewelry dealer, filed an action against its insuror, following a loss from burglary. Included in the lost property involved were certain items owned by the appellant W. Klang & Son, Inc., a manufacturer and wholesaler of jewelry, which the record shows the latter had sold to the former on consignment. Intervention by the appellant would enable it to be apprised of proceedings in the action, and to timely and effectively assert its claim to any portion of the proceeds or payment resulting from the action to which it would become entitled in event it was found therein that the insurance covered the loss, including Klang’s consigned property. As the owner-consignor of property for loss of which its consignee sought recovery from the in-suror, Klang had an interest in the litiga-tioh sufficient to entitle it to intervene. See Morgareidge v. Howey, 75 Fla. 234, 78 So. 14, 15; Miracle House Corporation v. Haige, Fla., 96 So.2d 417.

The order appealed from is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 So. 2d 510, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-klang-son-inc-v-milar-galleries-inc-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack