From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Henderson v. Stevens

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B
Jun 25, 1946
26 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 1946)

Opinion

June 25, 1946

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, M.B. Smith, Judge.

Atkinson Atkinson and John G. Leonardy, for appellant.

Garland W. Spencer, for appellee.


Appellee successfully prosecuted an action of ejectment to a final judgment. Appellant filed the following notice of appeal:

"Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney of record for the defendant, Jesse Henderson, this day sues out this his appeal from the order entered herein on the 11th day of February, A.D. 1946, denying the motion to dismiss in said cause, and the order entered herein on the 15th day of February, A.D. 1946, denying the motion for a new trial in said cause, said appeal being returnable to the Supreme Court of the State of Florida at Tallahassee, Florida."

Appellee has not challenged the sufficiency of the notice of appeal and both parties have argued the case on its merits. If the defect was such that it might be cured by waiver or stipulation we would not question it however this Court is without jurisdiction unless the appeal comes as provided by law. Appeals in law actions, such as in this case, shall lie only from a final judgment. See Rule 2 of this Court and Section 59.02, Fla. Stat., 1941, F.S.A.

For the above stated reasons the appeal herein is dismissed.

CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN and BUFORD, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Henderson v. Stevens

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B
Jun 25, 1946
26 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 1946)
Case details for

Henderson v. Stevens

Case Details

Full title:JESSE HENDERSON v. MARY C. STEVENS

Court:Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B

Date published: Jun 25, 1946

Citations

26 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 1946)
26 So. 2d 656

Citing Cases

State v. Allen

Rule 3.2, F.A.R., 31 F.S.A.: "Deficiencies in form or substance in the notice of appeal shall not be…

Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company v. Holt

Counsel for appellee have directed our attention to the decision in Douglas-Guardian Warehouse Corp. v.…