Shayne v. Pike, 180 So. 382 (Fla. 1938). · Go Syfert
Shayne v. Pike, 180 So. 382 (Fla. 1938). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cameo Hotel & Apartments, Ltd. v. Morris (fladistctapp, 1989-04-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cameo Hotel & Apartments, Ltd. v. Morris
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
In considering objections to a- foreclosure sale the “ ‘chancellor has a large discretion which will only be interfered with by the appellate court in a clear case of injustice.’ ” Crichlow v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, 131 Fla. 752, 756 , 180 So. 382, 384 (1938); accord Maule Indus. v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 91 So.2d 307, 311 (Fla.1956).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William Shayne, Trading and Doing Business as Dixie Music Co.,
v.
H. H. Pike
Supreme Court of Florida.
Mar 31, 1938.
180 So. 382
Murrell Malone, Albert S. Dubbin, H.H. Wells and B.K. Roberts, for Petitioner; L.J. Cushman and J. Velma Keen, for Respondent.
Ellts, Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford, Chapman.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Per Curiam.

The Respondent, the Judges and the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida, having moved the 'Court that the Transcript of the Record, certified by the said Clerk and filed in this Court on October 12, 1937, be taken and used in this cause, representing that the said Transcript is a complete Transcript of all the proceedings and the judgment in the cause in the Court below, and the motion having been duly considered, it is now or[*863] dered and adjudged by the Court that such motion be and it is hereby granted and that the aforesaid Transcript be taken and used as the Return to the Writ of Certiorari issued in this cause.

And Counsel for Petitioner having moved the Court to quash the judgment of the Circuit Court for Dade County to which the said Writ of Certiorari is addressed and this motion having been duly considered after notice given to Counsel for Respondents, and it appearing that the questions involved in this controversy have been settled by this Court in its opinion filed herein on January 14, 1938, upon the application of the Petitioner for a Writ of Certiorari, and that under the law of the case as determined by such opinion, the said judgment of the Circuit Court herein should be quashed, it is now thereupon ordered and adjudged by the Court that the motion of Counsel for Petitioner to quash the judgment of the Circuit Court in- this cause should be and it is hereby granted.

It is further ordered by the Court that the motion of Counsel for Respondent to quash the Writ of Certiorari issued in this cause be and it is hereby denied.

Ellts, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford, and Chapman, J. J., concur.