Morgan v. Howell
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Glass v. Layton (Fla. 1937)
- Bostwick v. Van Sant (Fla. 1929)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In a suit to quiet title to real estate, the court on June 1, 1916, enlarged the time for taking testimony. On August 22, 1916, the court appointed another master to take the testimony in lieu of the one previously appointed. An appeal was taken from the last order only. Errors are assigned on several other alleged rulings, none of which appear in the transcript except that of June 1, 1916, above mentioned.
Where the appeal is not from a final decree but only from an interlocutory order or decree, errors assigned on other interlocutory orders not specifically appealed from will not be considered by the appellate court. Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496, 50 South. Rep. 867; McCall v. Lee, 66 Fla. 14, 62 South. Rep. 902.
Orders enlarging the time for taking testimony in equity causes are within the sound discretion of the judge, when special cause is shown; and unless abuse of such discretion appears the appellate court will not interfere. Braxton v. Lidden, 55 Fla. 785, 46 South. Rep. 324.
As this court can consider only the interlocutory order that alone is appealed from and as no abuse of judicial
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.