Legal Opinion

Zetterlund v. Stratton

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided October 31, 1925PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Pee Cuexam.

The sole question presented here is whether or not the chancellor erred in granting an extension of time for taking testimony after the cause had been at issue for some time, and after it had been set down for hearing on bill and answer.

■ Equity Rule 71 in effect provides that three months and no more shall be allowed for taking testimony after the cause is at issue, unless the judge .shall upon special cause shown by either party enlarge the time.

The extension complained of here was granted after motion made therefor and notice to the opposite party and on full hearing by all…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. McMillan v. WarrenSupreme Court of Florida · 1910
  2. Long v. AndersonSupreme Court of Florida · 1904
  3. Rausch v. Equitable Life Assurance SocietySupreme Court of Florida · 1919
  4. O'Gara v. HancockSupreme Court of Florida · 1918
  5. Braxton v. LiddonSupreme Court of Florida · 1908

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Demos v. WalkerSupreme Court of Florida · 1930
  2. Edgar v. BaconSupreme Court of Florida · 1929
  3. Webster v. SneiderSupreme Court of Florida · 1932

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API