Opinion
February 21, 1950. Rehearing Denied March 10, 1950.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Frank A. Smith, J.
Sam E. Murrell and Sam E. Murrell, Jr., Orlando, for appellant.
Whitfield, Wright Whitfield, Orlando, for appellee.
In the final decree the chancellor had decided that the appellee should recover from the appellant certain cash and jewelry which he found were held by the latter in trust for the former. The court retained "jurisdiction * * * for the entry of such other orders as [might become] necessary."
Two years had passed when the court was apprised that the jewelry had been delivered but the money had not been forthcoming; so, on the application of the appellee, he ordered an execution to issue to enforce compliance with the unperformed part of the decree.
There was no appeal from the final decree, and it is not now questioned.
The subsequent action of the court, says appellant, was an unauthorized amendment or correction of the final decree after it had long since become absolute, while the appellee insists that it was but the exercise of jurisdiction reserved for the very purpose of effectuating a decree adjudicating the merits of the controversy.
We do not construe the chancellor's act as disturbing in any way the decree which he had lost the power of modifying, but only as resorting to the jurisdiction he had retained for the very purpose of finally adjusting the equities between the parties. It seems to us that even if he had not taken the pains to provide in the final decree for further orders respecting the property to be surrendered, still he would have had the power to enter such orders as might be necessary fully to carry out his decision in the main controversy.
Affirmed.
ADAMS, C.J., and TERRELL and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.