WARREN W. PEARCE
v.
FLAGLER MEMORIAL PARK, 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 certiorari, quashing a lower court's order that transferred a case from equity to law. The court found the original bill of complaint contained equity and that relief in equity would be more complete.
Yes, the chancellor erred in transferring the cause to the law side. The bill of complaint contained equity, and relief in equity would be more complete and efficacious.
“It appears that petitioner filed his bill of complaint against respondent praying for an accounting and other relief. The chancellor granting a motion by respondent transferring the cause to.the law side of the docket.”
Describes the procedural posture and the lower court's action.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner filed a bill of complaint in equity against the respondent, seeking an accounting and other relief. The chancellor granted the responde…
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
This is an application for certiorari under Rule 34 of the rules of this court. It appears that petitioner filed his bill of complaint against respondent praying for an accounting and other relief. The chancellor granting a motion by respondent transferring the cause to.the law side of the docket. This appeal is by certiorari from that decree.
The record and the briefs have been examined and we are convinced that the bill and the amended bill of complaint contained equity and that relief by equity will be more complete and efficacious. This is, of course, assuming that the allega*662tions of the amended bill of complaint are proven. It was, therefore, error to transfer the cause to the law side of the docket.
Certiorari is granted and the judgment appealed from is quashed with directions to reinstate the amended bill of complaint and proceed accordingly.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, C. J., TERRELL, CHAPMAN and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ALL Fla. Sur. Co. v. Coker, 88 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1956)…dence under the same circumstances.” The decree is reversed for proceeding not inconsistent with this opinion and the cases of Crosby v. Orange State Oil Co., 1947, 158 Fla. 551, 29 So. 2d 634 and Orange State Oil Co. v. Crosby, 1947, 160 Fla. 664, 36 So. 2d 273, are overruled. [*512] The gravamen of this suit is a 99-year lease, hereinafter referred to as the “lease”. Morris Sokolik and Florence Sokolik, his wife, filed their complaint against Ocean Park Company, also known as Ocean Park Company, Inc., a F…
-
Smith v. Royal Auto. Grp., Inc., 675 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…rm to the intentions of the parties. As reformation does not “charge” the other party with enforcement of the agreement, the statute of frauds has no effect on an action to reform a written document. See Orange State Oil Co. v. Crosby, 160 Fla. 664, 36 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1948), overruled on other grounds, All Florida Sur. Co. v. Coker, 88 So. 2d 508 (Fla.1956); Miley v. Miley, 402 So. 2d 557, 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Gennaro v. Leeper, 313 So. 2d 70, 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Although case law from some jurisdict…
-
Gennaro v. Leeper, 313 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…exercise of jurisdiction. See Chabot v. Winter Park Co., 34 Fla. 258, 15 So. 756, 759.” It is also the law that the statute of frauds does not constitute a bar in a proceeding seeking reformation. Orange State Oil Co. v. Crosby, 1948, 160 Fla. 664, 36 So. 2d 273. Under certain exceptional circumstances a plaintiff might be entitled to both specific performance and damages. In the event the appellant is successful under Count I it would be a question for the trial court to determine whether or not he would…