JOHN A. MCDONALD, APPELLANT,
v.
A. B. RUSSELL, APPELLEE
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.
In a creditor's bill to subject land to judgment liens, the defendant Boyd demurred on the ground that the original owner Sanford was a necessary party to the suit. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's overruling of the demurrer, holding that Sanford's presence was unnecessary because he was not charged with fraud and the relief sought did not affect him.
Sanford was not a necessary party to the suit. His presence was entirely unnecessary to the final determination of the rights of the parties because he was charged with no complicity in or knowledge of the fraud, the relief sought did not affect him, and no relief was prayed against him.
“The presence of Sanford was entirely unnecessary to the final determination' of the rights of the parties. He is charged with no complicity in, or knowledge of, the fraud charged against the other' parties.”
Establishes the core holding that Sanford's presence was not required because he had no connection to the alleged fraud
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRussell obtained several judgments against McDonald and issued executions thereon. McDonald purchased real estate from H. S. Sanford, and at McDonald'…
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 Fraudulent Conveyance cases and more on FLexlaw
delivered the opinion of the court.
The bill charges that Russell obtained several judgments against appellant upon which execution had been issued, and that appellant had purchased of Ii. S. Sanford certain real estate, but that at the instance of appellant Sanford jihad conveyed the property to McDonald, and afterwards executed a deed of the same to one Boyd, a co-defendant named in the bill, and that Boyd held the land in fraud of the rights of complainant, and prays that it should be subjected to the payment of the judgments. ISTo fraud is .charged against Sanford, nor any other fact, except that the land was conveyed by him to Boyd. The defendant Boyd demurred to the bill upon the sole ground that Sanford was a necessary party to the suit, according to the statements of the bill. The Circuit Judge overruled the demurrer, and from this order McDonald appealed.
The judge committed no error in overruling the demur*261rer. The presence of Sanford was entirely unnecessary to the final determination' of the rights of the parties. He is charged with no complicity in, or knowledge of, the fraud charged against the other' parties. It is alleged that Sanford had conveyed the land to McDonald, and afterwards, at the instance of McDonald, executed another deed to Boyd, and the bill seeks to set aside the later deed. The setting aside of this deed, and subjecting the property to the lien of the judgments, is of no consequence to Sanford, and Ms presence as a party is of no importance to any of the other parties named. Ho relief is prayed as against him or affecting him, and the facts charged give no foundation for any prayer as against him; he is merely a witness as to these parties, and this being the case, the demurrer was properly overruled. Story Eq. PL, §231; Story Eq. Jur., §1,499; Mitford Ch. PL, by Jeremy, 188.
The decree is therefore affirmed with costs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. Antonio Solary et ux., 37 Fla. 102 (Fla. 1896)…rted with all their interest in the land, are-not connected in any way with the mining operations, and no relief is asked against them. We do not regard them as necessary parties to this suit. Ritch vs. Eichelburg, 13 Fla. 169; McDonald vs. Russell, 16 Fla. 260; Fridenburg vs. Wilson, 20 Fla. 359. The plea was overruled, and it is claimed that the-court erred in this ruling. In determining the sufficiency of the plea we must accept every fact stated in the bill, and not denied by the plea, as true, and th…
-
Fla. Land Rock Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 50 Fla. 501 (Fla. 1905)…t in the land in question for the reason that no fraud was charged against them and no relief [*515] asked against them, implying that if fraud were charged and relief asked against them they would be necessary parties. Also see McDonald v. Russell, 16 Fla. 260; Betton v. Williams, 4 Fla. 11. However, there is still another reason why such defendants are necessary and indispensable parties. The record shows that they had conveyed the lands in question to the Florida Land Rock Phosphate Company by a deed co…