E. J. BAIRD, APPELLANT,
v.
THE ELLSWORTH TRUST COMPANY, A CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF IOWA, A. O. STEENBURG, J. W. PATTON, AND D. G. BARDIN, AND S. J. SIKES, PARTNERS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF BARDIN & SIKES, APPELLEES
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 affirmed the dissolution of a temporary injunction but reversed the dismissal of the bill, holding that the bill should not have been dismissed before the time for taking testimony had expired.
The court held that while the dissolution of the temporary injunction was proper, the dismissal of the bill was erroneous. The bill should have been retained for a final hearing after full proofs were taken.
“Here, as there, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the action of the court in dissolving the injunction; but here, as there, the appellant had a right that the bill be retained for- a final hearing after full proofs.”
This quote establishes that while the injunction dissolution was justified, the dismissal of the bill was not.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved an appeal from an order dissolving a temporary injunction and dismissing the bill. This action was taken upon a motion to dissolve, …
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 Final Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This case is controlled by the ruling made in Richardson v. Kittlewell, 45 Fla....., 32 South. Rep. 984. Here, as there, the appeal is from an order dissolving a tempo rary injunction and dismissing the bill, upon a hearing had upon motion to dissolve based upon bill, answer and affidavits, before the time for taking testimony had expired. Here, as there, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the action of the court in dissolving the injunction; but here, as there, the appellant had a right that the bill be retained for-a final hearing after full proofs. The bill should not have been dismissed upon mere motion to dissolve.
The decree appealed from, in so far as it dissolves the temporary injunction, is affirmed. In so far as it dismisses the bill it is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings conformable to chancery practice.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Godwin v. Phifer, 51 Fla. 441 (Fla. 1906)…, 10 South. Rep. 480, S. C. 29 Am. St. Rep. 258; Campbell v. White, 39 Fla. 745, 23 South. Rep. 555; Baya v. Town of Lake City, 44 Fla. 491, 33 South. Rep. 400; Richardson v. Kittlewell, 45 Fla. 551, 33 South. Rep. 984; Baird v. Ellsworth Trust Co., 45 Fla. 187, 34 South. Rep. [*459] 565; Bluthenthal v. Mohlman, 49 Fla. 275, 38 South. Rep. 709; Suwannee & S. P. R. Co. v. West Coast Ry. Co., 50 Fla. 609, 39 South. Rep. 538. While this is true, if it is plainly apparent that the bill is without equity, an i…