Case Name: Elizabeth Hulda PEPPE, a single woman, R. A. Holman and Mary Holman, his wife, and Alice W. Beebe, Appellants, v. C. Farris BRYANT, Governor et al. as the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, and Siesta Properties, Inc., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1966-10-05
Citations: 190 So. 2d 795
Docket Number: Nos. 6049, 6050
Parties: Elizabeth Hulda PEPPE, a single woman, R. A. Holman and Mary Holman, his wife, and Alice W. Beebe, Appellants, v. C. Farris BRYANT, Governor et al. as the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, and Siesta Properties, Inc., Appellees.
Judges: SHANNON, Acting C. J., and LILES and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 190
Pages: 795–795

Head Matter:
Elizabeth Hulda PEPPE, a single woman, R. A. Holman and Mary Holman, his wife, and Alice W. Beebe, Appellants, v. C. Farris BRYANT, Governor et al. as the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, and Siesta Properties, Inc., Appellees.
Nos. 6049, 6050.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.
Oct. 5, 1966.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 31, 1966.
Clyde H. Wilson, John F. Burket, Jr., of Burket, Smith & Bowman, Thomas W. Butler, Sarasota, J. Lewis Hall, Jr., of Hall, Hartwell & Hall, Tallahassee, for appellants.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James T. Carlisle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for appellee Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund.
W. T. Harrison, Jr., of Williams, Parker, Harrison & Dietz, Sarasota, for appellee Siesta Properties, Inc.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellants have taken both an appeal and an interlocutory appeal from a partial summary decree entered by the chancellor below. We determine that the partial summary decree appealed is interlocutory in nature and therefore dismiss the appeal and proceed to the merits of this cause on the interlocutory appeal.
We have carefully examined the record on appeal in this case and studied the excellent briefs submitted by the parties.
When viewed in the light of the case of Siesta Properties, Inc. v. Hart, Fla.App. 1960, 122 So.2d 218, and Fla.St. 66.13, F.S.A., we hold that the appellants have failed to show that the learned chancellor below committed any reversible error in entering the partial summary decree herein appealed. It has long been the established law of this jurisdiction that the appellant has the burden of showing reversible error.
The partial summary decree appealed is hereby affirmed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., and LILES and HOBSON, JJ., concur.