Hous. Auth. v. Macho, 184 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). · Go Syfert
Search
Hous. Auth. v. Macho, 184 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sundie v. Haren (fla, 1971-09-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Sundie v. Haren
Fla. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See Housing Authority of the City of Miami v. Macho, Fla.App. 1966, 184 So.2d 916 ." In Horn v. Horn, the case cited for conflict, this Court held: [4] "If appellant determines to appeal without posting a supersedeas bond, it is his privilege to do so; but, at the same time, the lower Court has the power to enforce such decree as has then been entered." In Jerles Investment Co. v. Wells, [5] this Court stated: "The purpose of supersedeas is to preserve the status of the res pending litigation in the appellate court." The case of Housing Authority of City of Miami v. Macho, [6] relied on by the…
cited Cited "see" Haren v. Sundie
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Housing Authority of the City of Miami v. Macho, Fla.App. 1966, 184 So.2d 916 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF MIAMI, Florida
v.
Anna MACHO, Jack Rambo, Jr., and Annie May Rambo, his wife
No. 66-168.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Apr 12, 1966.
184 So. 2d 916
J. M. Flowers, Miami, for appellant., Kates & Rees and Sheldon Rosenberg, No. Miami, for appellees.
Carroll, Hendry, Swann.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of sale entered in a foreclosure suit. On a prior appeal from the final decree of foreclosure this court reversed the decree in part, 181 So.2d 680, as to a matter which did not preclude enforcement of the decree by foreclosure sale. After the filing of our mandate the chancellor entered an order for sale on a specified date, and it is that order which is now appealed.

Under rule 5.12, F.A.R., 31 F.S.A. this appeal by a commission, a public body of a political subdivision -of the state, stayed the sale order. Later this appellant filed in the Supreme Court of Florida a petition for certiorari for review of the decision rendered by this court on the earlier appeal from the final decree. Under the appellate rules mentioned, the filing by the Housing Authority of its petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court operated to stay the execution or performance of the foreclosure decree, thereby rendering ineffective the present order of the trial court for sale on a stated early date. Thus it appears that this interlocutory appeal has been rendered moot, and for that reason this appeal is dismissed.

It is so ordered.