PETER TELLERINE
v.
PUBLIC REALTY COMPANY, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a final decree in an equity action where the trial court granted relief based on a bill of complaint that alleged multiple grounds for equitable relief, including accounting, lease forfeiture, and injunctive relief. The court held that where a bill of complaint alleges facts sufficient to invoke equitable jurisdiction, the court may grant all equitable relief warranted by the allegations and proof, even if some relief might have been available at law.
Both questions were answered affirmatively. The court held that where a bill of complaint alleges facts showing entitlement to any relief in equity, the bill contains equity, and when equity assumes jurisdiction it will determine all matters between the parties properly presented. The relief granted, though not encompassing all that the allegations and proof warranted, was within the purview of the allegations and sufficiently disposed of the parties' rights.
“Every bill of complaint shall be considered to pray for general relief.”
Establishes that a bill of complaint encompasses general equitable relief beyond specific allegations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Tellerine filed a bill of complaint against Public Realty Company seeking equitable relief. The allegations showed entitlement to an account…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Lease Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal brings for review final decree entered pursuant to bill of complaint, decree pro confesso timely entered after due notice to defendant that same would be applied for, and testimony taken.
*557■ We have here two questions, the answers to which control the disposition of the appeal, viz:
(1) Do the allegations of the bill of complaint state a cause, or causes, of action cognizable in equity?
(2) Does the relief awarded in the decree fall within the purview of the allegations of the bill of complaint?
Both questions must be answered in the affirmative.
Section 28, Florida Chancery Act provides, inter alia:
“Every bill of complaint shall be considered to pray for general relief.”
It, therefore, follows that if the allegations of the bill of complaint are sufficient to show that the complainant is entitled to any relief in equity,. it must be held that the bill contains equity.
It is true that the bill of complaint sought relief which, assuming the allegations of the bill to be true, it could have had at law; but the equitable relief which the allegations showed the plaintiff to be entitled to and the relief which might otherwise have only been had at law grew out of a single transaction which was divided into the two parts. Therefore, when equity assumes jurisdiction to grant relief in equity it will proceed with the determination of all matters pending between the parties properly presented. Commercial Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 75 Fla. 634, 79 So. 446; Szabo v. Speckman, 73 Fla. 374, 74 So. 411, L.R.A. 1917D, 357; Donegan v. Baker, etc. Co., 73 Fla. 241, 74 So. 202; Farrell v. Forest Inv. Co., 73 Fla. 191, 74 So. 216, 1 A.L.R. 25; Leesburg State Bank v. Lyle, 99 Fla. 535, 126 So. 791; Commercial Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 80 Fla. 685, 87 Sou. 315; Ringling Estates v. White, 105 Fla. 581, 141 Sou; 884; Etter v. State Bank, 76 Fla. 203, 79 So. 724, 726.
The allegations of the bill show that plaintiff was entitled to an accounting. They show that it was entitled to have the lease adjudged forfeited for breach, of its covenants and was entitled to have certain personal property remain in the building where it was located and to an injunction prohibiting, its removal therefrom. As incidental to this relief it was entitled to be put in possession of the leased premises and of the personal property which is referred to in the lease *558and described in the bill of sale which constituted parts of the transaction between the parties.
In this case the court did not in terms grant all the relief that the allegations of the bill of complaint and the proof warranted but such relief as was granted by the decree is within the purview of the allegations of the bill of complaint and sufficiently disposes of the rights of the parties as shown by the pleading and proof.
Therefore, the decree is affirmed.
So ordered.
THOMAS, C.J., ADAMS and BARNS,. J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McGRIFF et ux. v. McGILL, 62 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1952)…he issues involved in the controversy between the parties, including the award of money damages, in order to avoid multiplicity of suits. Bell v. Smith, 159 Fla. 817, 32 So. 2d 829, 175 A.L.R. 695; Tellerine v. Public Realty Co., Inc., 158 Fla. 556, 28 So. 2d 821; Chicago Trust Co. v. Knabb, 142 Fla. 767, 196 So. 200; Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Saffold Bros. Produce Co., 121 Fla. 833, 164 So. 681. The parties were before the court, the pleadings placed the question of damages in issue and evidence was tak…
-
Revell v. Crews, 97 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)…he provisions of Rule 1.8(b), 1954 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., the question before us is whether or not the complaint as amended states a cause for any equitable relief in the light of Tellerine v. Public Realty Company, Inc., 1947, 158 Fla. 556, 28 So. 2d 821. We cannot accept appellant’s theory as apparently propounded that any generalized basis of possible equitable jurisdiction constitutes a basis for equity in the complaint. We therefore explore the only categories consonant with the…
Authorities Cited
- Farrell v. Forest Inv. Co., 73 Fla. 191 (Fla. 1917)
- The Commercial Bank of Ocala v. The First Nat'l Bank of Gainesville, 80 Fla. 685 (Fla. 1920)
- Etter v. State Bank of Fla., 76 Fla. 203 (Fla. 1918)
- Leesburg State Bank v. Lyle, 99 Fla. 535 (Fla. 1930)
- The Commercial Bank of Ocala v. First Nat'l Bank of Gainesville, 75 Fla. 634 (Fla. 1918)
- Szabo v. Speckman, 73 Fla. 374 (Fla. 1917)
- John Ringling Ests., Inc. v. White, 105 Fla. 581 (Fla. 1932)
- Donegan v. Baker & Holmes Co., 73 Fla. 241 (Fla. 1917)
- State v. Nejin, 74 So. 202 (La. 1916)