IRA J. CARTER, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES. R. SMITH, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decree, finding that the appellee had not stated a sufficient case to be made a co-plaintiff in another suit. The court emphasized the lack of necessary information in the appellee's bill to justify such a joinder.
No, the appellee's bill did not state a sufficient case to be made a co-plaintiff in the other suit. The bill was too vague and indefinite to grant equitable relief.
“The primary question raised by the pleadings in this suit is whether the appellee stated in his bill such a case as entitled him to be made a co-plaintiff in another suit, to which he was not a party, and to participate in the relief prayed for in the bill in that suit.”
States the central legal question of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee sought to be made a co-plaintiff in a suit to which he was not a party. His bill did not specify the purpose or relief sought in the othe…
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.
Malone, Circuit Judge,
(after stating the facts)-.
The primary question raised by the pleadings in this suit is whether the appellee stated in his bill such a case as entitled him to be made a co-plaintiff in another suit, to which he was not a party, and to participate in the relief prayed for in the bill in that suit.
The appellee neither stated in his bill the purposes-or objects of that other suit; nor the relief prayed for therein; nor his interest, if any, in the subject-matter thereof; nor whether his interest, if any, is adverse and conflicting or consistent with that of the plaintiff' therein; nor whether the plaintiff therein consents or objects to his being made a co-plaintiff therein. These matters are left to conjecture. In the absence of information touching them, we are unable to discover from the bill that the appellee is either a necessary or proper party to that other suit. The bill, therefore, is-so vague and indefinite that it does not state any case-upon which a court of equity will grant relief. Besides, there is no practice in equity which will authorize the court, upon the application of a person not a party to a suit, to compel a plaintiff to make such, person a co-plaintiff. Drake vs. Goodridge, 6 Blatchford, 151.
The decree appealed from is reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ulysses C. Durham v. Edwards, 50 Fla. 495 (Fla. 1905)…uld be sustained. Bridger v. Thrasher, 22 Fla. 383; 16 Cyc. 238. If a bill for relief is so vague and indenite that it does not state any case upon which a court of equity will grant relief, it will be demurrable for want of equity. Carter v. Smith, 35 Fla. 169, 17 South. Rep. 411. No relief can be granted where the complainant’s own showing in his bill demonstrates a want of equity in his prayer. Megin v. Filor, 4 Fla. 203, text. 207. Applying these tests to the bill, we are of the opinion that it signal…
-
Doke v. Williams, 45 Fla. 248 (Fla. 1903)…ly. If he fails fo make necessary parties to the suit, or does not make necessary averments as to those against wdiom he proceeds, his suit fails; but whether lie will cure the defect by amendment rests with himself. In the case of Carter v. Smith. 35 Fla. 169, 17 South. Rep. 411, this court held that "íbero is no practice in [*250] equity which will authorize the court, upon-the application of a person noi a party to a suit, to compel a plaintiff to make such person a co-plaintiíf,” resting its decision…
-
Toomer v. Chancey, 92 Fla. 458 (Fla. 1926)…te no part of Toomer’s cause of action [*460] against the defendants named in his amended bill of complaint. The petition to intervene should have been denied. 21 Corpus Juris, 343; Doke v. Williams, 45 Fla. 248, 34 South. Rep. 569; Carter v. Smith, 35 Fla. 169, 17 South. Rep. 411. Separate demurrers were filed by C. L. Chancey and Bland & Driggers to the amended bill of complaint; each of such demurrers was a general demurrer. The demurrer of Bland & Driggers was without standing because Bland & Driggers…