A. D. CAMPBELL, AS TRUSTEE, AND CEPHAS L. WILSON, AS COMMISSIONER, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN H. WHITE, 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.
A Florida Supreme Court decision reversing an injunction order that sought to prevent enforcement of a foreclosure decree. The court held that the plaintiff, who was actually a party defendant to the foreclosure decree, failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome the defendant's responsive answer denying the equities of the bill.
The court held that the injunction order was erroneously made and reversed it. Under the applicable rule, when a defendant files a fully responsive answer denying all equities at the injunction hearing, the judge must be governed by the weight of the evidence. Here, the defendants' evidence that Campbell was barred by the foreclosure decree was uncontradicted, and Campbell failed to present any evidence supporting his alleged title or breaking the force of the defendants' proof.
“the rule, as announced by this court in Sullivan vs. Moreno, 19 Fla. 200, under our statute permitting both parties in such cases to introduce evidence at the hearing for injunction in support of the bill and the answer, is, that the judge in granting or withholding the injunction must be governed by the weight of the evidence”
Establishes the governing legal standard for injunction decisions when both parties present evidence at the hearing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCampbell and Wilson, as trustee and commissioner, sought to enjoin White from enforcing a foreclosure decree. The defendants' answer revealed that Cam…
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.
Tayuhi, C. J.:
Where the defendant to a bill for injunction files an answer to such bill at the hearing of the application for injunction, that is fully responsive to such bill, and that denies all the equities thereof, the rule, as announced by this court in Sullivan vs. Moreno, 19 Fla. 200, under our statute permitting both parties in such cases to introduce evidence at the hearing for injunction in support of the bill and the answer, is, that the judge in granting or withholding the injunction must be governed by the weight of the evidence. Applying this rule to the case made in the record before us, the order for injunction appealed from was improvident! y and erroneously made. The bill itself is vague and meagre in its allegations, stating conclusions of law, rather than facts, as to the title of the complainant, and as to the wrongfulness and illegality of the threatened cloud upon such title. The defendants’ answer, interposed at the hearing of the application for injunction, is fully responsive to, and .positively denies all the equities of, the bill. Besides this, the answer discloses the material facts that was, from appearances, purposely withheld from the bill, that the complainant was in fact a party defendant to the decree of foreclosure, the enforcement of which he was seeking to enjoin, and that all of his rights and equity of redemption in the identical land whose sale-under such décree he was seeking to enjoin, were by such foreclosure decree barred and foreclosed. This, disclosure made by the answer was conclusively proven by the defendants at the hearing of the application for injunction by the introduction of the record evidence thereof; and the complainant, according to the i’ecord before us, introduced nothing to sustain his alleged title, that was squarely denied by the answer, nor to break the force of the disclosure made by the answer that he was a party defendant to the foreclosure decree he was seeking to enjoin. The order for injunction had incorporated therein a proviso that it was made upon the condition that the complainant would amend his bill so as to show that he had acquired title to the land in dispute subsequently to the decree of foreclosure. No such amendment of the bill appears-in the record before us, but we are called upon to pass only on the case as made before the judge below by the pleadings and proofs as it stood when the order appealed from was made. By that record the order-appealed from was erroneously made, and it is hereby reversed with directions for such further proceedings-as may be conformable to this decision and the practice-in equity.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dade Enters., Inc. v. Wometco Theatres, Inc., 119 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1935)…plication that is fully responsive to the bill and that denies all the equities thereof, the general rule is that the judge in granting or withholding the injunction must be governed by the weight and legal effect of the evidence. Campbell v. White, 39 Fla. 745, 23 Sou. 555. The facts of the present case as disclosed at the hearing, were substantially as follows: On October 26, 1933, United Artists Corporation, a distributor, entered into a contract of license with Sparks East Coast Theaters, an exhibito…
-
Godwin v. Phifer, 51 Fla. 441 (Fla. 1906)…y the entire record. P. & G. & A. & G. C. R. R. Co. v. Spratt, 12 Fla. 26 text 114, S. C. 91 Am. Dec. 747; Section 1466 of Revised Statutes of 1892; Sullivan v. Moreno, 19 Fla. 200; Fuller v. Cason, 26 Fla. 476, 7 South. Rep. 870; Campbell v. White, 39 Fla. 745, 23 South. Rep. 555. [*453] It is also the settled law here that not only must the allegations in the bill for an injunction be clear, direct and positive, but that they must be verified by an affidavit, which also must be direct and positive. And,…1 / 2
-
Davis v. Wilson, 139 Fla. 698 (Fla. 1939)…ourt, dependent upon surrounding circumstances. Carter v. Bennett, 6 Fla. 214; Linton v. Denham, 6 Fla. 535. The granting of temporary injunctions is within the sound discretion of the court, “according to the weight of evidence.” Campbell v. White, 39 Fla. 745, 23 Sou. Rep. 555; Sullivan v. Moreno, 19 Fla. 200; Dade Enterprises v. Wometco Theatres, 119 Fla. 70, 160 Sou. Rep. 209. In cases where the sworn bill has been filed, and a hearing had and testimony taken for the issuance of a temporary injunction…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sullivan v. Moreno, 19 Fla. 200 (Fla. 1882)