Wilder v. Dunne

45 Fla. 662
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJanuary 15, 1903
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 45 Fla. 662 (Wilder v. Dunne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wilder v. Dunne, 45 Fla. 662 (Fla. 1903).

Opinion

Carter, P. J.

In March, 1898, appellee filed his bill in equity against appellant in the Circuit Court of Polk county praying, among other things, the cancellation of a certain tax deed held by the latter, embracing lands claimed by the former. Appellant after answering the bill filed a cross-bill seeking to recover from appellee certain sums alleged to have been paid for the purchase of the lands at the tax sales, and other sums subsequently paid out for taxes on the lands. A demurrer to the cross-bill was interposed by appellee and upon the hearing had Septeniber 7, 1898, the demurrer was sustained with leave to amend. Subsequently, on October-18, 1898, á final decree was rendered by which the tax deed held by appellant was cancelled, and, among other things, it was decreed therein “that the [663]*663cross-bill filed herein by defendant E. G. Wilder and the amended cross-bill be each ánd both are dismissed.”

Thereafter, on October 24, 1898, appellant entered this appeal confining it to the order of September 7, 1898, sustaining the demurrer to his cross-bill.

The final decree, though entered prior to the appeal, was not appealed from.

In Burnham v. Driggers, 44 Fla. 168, 32 South. Rep. 796, following Stockton v. Harmon, 32 Fla. 312,13 South. Rep. 833, it was held that “there can be no separate appeal from an order dissolving an injunction while there is a standing order dismissing the bill” not appealed from, and the principle there ruled, is applicable to this case. Victor Sewing Machine Co. v. Heller, 41 Wis. 657; Thornton v. Eaton, 45 Wis. 621; Goldmark v. Rosenfeld, 69 Wis. 469, 34 N. W. Rep. 228.

An order will be entered dismissing the appeal at the cost of the appellant.

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

Related

Cottrell v. Amerkan
35 So. 2d 383 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1948)
Dixon v. Gregg
168 So. 2 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
Price v. Horton
80 So. 305 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1918)
Gunn Realty Co. v. Dutton
80 So. 51 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1918)
Harcum v. Benson
160 N.W. 80 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1916)
Stanley v. Standard Cypress Co.
54 Fla. 583 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 Fla. 662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilder-v-dunne-fla-1903.