VICTOR H. WALKER AND JACK C. HARMON
v.
FRED J. WALKER AND MODERN PAINTING CO., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION
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 granted a writ of certiorari, quashing a lower court's order that transferred a case from equity to law. The court found that the equity court had erred in dividing jurisdiction, as it should have retained the entire case to provide complete relief.
Yes, the equity court erred in sustaining the motion to dismiss and transferring the case to the law side. The court should have retained full jurisdiction to provide complete relief.
“once having taken jurisdiction of a controversy it "ought to do justice completely and not by halves."”
This quote establishes the principle that equity courts should retain jurisdiction to provide full relief.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs filed a bill in equity, and their initial motion to dismiss was denied. The court then ordered the case transferred to the law side for fra…
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 Equitable Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiffs-Petitioners filed their bill against the respondents and motion to dismiss filed by the respondents was denied. The court also ordered the cause transferred to the law side of the court upon issues to be framed. The chancellor retained jurisdiction pending the determination of the issues at law.
Thereafter plaintiff filed an amended bill of complaint to which respondents filed their motion to dismiss. Which motion to dismiss addressed to the amended bill was sustained and the chancellor ordered the case to proceed upon the former order first above mentioned.
Plaintiffs-Petitioners seek now a writ of certiorari.
The bill appears to state a case for accounting and discovery, and it is a principle of equity that once having taken jurisdiction of a controversy it “ought to do justice completely and not by halves.” It appears that there is equity in the bill and the learned chancellor was in error, in this instance, in transferring a portion of it to the law side of the court.
Wherefore, it is ordered that certiorari issue and that the portion of the chancellor’s order relating to a transfer to the law side of the court be quashed.
THOMAS, C. J., BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.