From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

S. Laundry Co., Marianna v. Home Ins. Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Aug 25, 1966
190 So. 2d 39 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

Opinion

No. H-7.

August 25, 1966.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Jackson County, Joseph W. Bailey, J.

Loyd C. Hilton, Jr., of Barron Hilton, Panama City, for appellant.

Rowlett W. Bryant, of Isler Welch, and Leo C. Jones, III, of Jones Jones, Panama City, for appellees.


This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the Circuit Court, Jackson County, Florida, dismissing a complaint, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed notice of interlocutory appeal of said order. The appellee made a motion before this court to have said interlocutory appeal be considered a full appeal. This motion was denied by this court. The appellant proceeded to file assignments of error, apparently without regard to the provision of Rule 4.2 of Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., which limits interlocutory appeals from actions at law to questions of venue and jurisdiction over the person. The order appealed not being final and the question of venue and jurisdiction not being raised as an issue, the appeal should be and is hereby dismissed. This Court has no jurisdiction to treat this appeal as a full appeal.

Hancock et al. v. Piper et al., 186 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1966).

WIGGINTON, Acting C.J., and SACK, J., concur.


Summaries of

S. Laundry Co., Marianna v. Home Ins. Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Aug 25, 1966
190 So. 2d 39 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)
Case details for

S. Laundry Co., Marianna v. Home Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:SOUTHERN LAUNDRY COMPANY OF MARIANNA, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Aug 25, 1966

Citations

190 So. 2d 39 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

Citing Cases

Dimond v. Cimaroli

Appellee filed her Motion to Quash Interlocutory Appeal and this Court deferred action thereon until the…

Cowles v. Phares

We further hold that the motion for new trial was ineffective, at least until such time as a final order or…