THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
THE MASSEY BUSINESS COLLEGE, A CORPORATION, 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 decree in favor of the Massey Business College, holding that the City of Jacksonville's bill of complaint in equity was defective because it involved only personal property for which an adequate remedy at law existed, and therefore lacked equity jurisdiction.
The bill of complaint was without equity and failed to present a case where equitable relief was authorized. The court reversed the decree and directed the dismissal of the bill because personal property disputes are properly addressed through legal remedies rather than equity proceedings.
“Although the point is not expressly presented or argued in this court, an examination of the bill of complaint discloses that it is without equity, complainant having ample remedy at law, all the property mentioned therein being personal property.”
Establishes the core defect: the bill lacks equity jurisdiction because it involves personal property for which adequate legal remedies exist.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Jacksonville filed a bill of complaint against the Massey Business College seeking equitable relief regarding personal property. The lower…
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 Remedy At Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Shackleford, J.
(after stating the facts).- — Although the point is not expressly presented or argued in this court, an examination of the bill of complaint discloses that it is without equity, complainant having ample remedy at law, all the property mentioned therein being personal property. The case of Baldwin v. Tucker, 16 Fla. 258, is directly in point. Also see Town of Orange City v. Thayer, 15 Fla. 502, 34 South. Rep. 573, and numerous authorities there cited.
The bill having failed to present a case where the relief prayed is authorized and, moreover, being entirely without equity, it is the duty of the appellate court to notice the defect, although it has been ignored in the pleadings, assignments of error and arguments. Stapylton v. Neely, 44 Fla. 212, 32 South. Rep. 868; Richardson v. Gilbert, 21 Fla. 544, text 555, and authorities there cited; Freeman v. Timanus, 12 Fla. 393, text 404; Sauls v. Freeman, 24 Fla. 209, text 224, 4 South. Rep. 525; Trustees I. I. Fund of Florida v. Gleason, 39 Fla. 771, text 773, 23 South. Rep. 539; McMillan v. Wiley, 45 Fla. 487, 33 South. Rep. 993; See, also, Griffin v. Orman, 9 Fla. 22; Hughey v. Win-borne, 44 Fla. 601, 33 South. Rep. 249.
It is incumbent upon a complainant to allege in his bill every fact, clearly and definitely, that is necessary to entitle him to relief; and if he omits essential facts therefrom, or states such facts therein as show that he is not entitled to relief in a court of-equity, he must suffer the consequences of his so doing. Johnson v. McKinnon 45 Fla. 338, 34 South. Rep. 272; Stockton v. National Bank of Jacksonville, 45 Fla. 590, 34 South. Rep. 897; Pinney v. Pinney, 46 Fla. 559, 35 South. Rep. 95. Also see Parker v. Dekle, 46 Fla. 452, 35 South. Rep. 4; Jordan v. Petty, 5 Fla. 326, text 332; Humphreys v. Atlantic Milling Co., 98 Mo. 542, text 551, 10 S. W. Rep. 140; Clark v. Bayer, 32 Ohio St. 299, text 304, S. C. 30 Amer. Rep. 593.
From what has been said -it follows that the decree must be reversed, with directions to dismiss the bill; the appellee to pay the costs of this appeal.
Hocker, Cockrell, Whitfield and Carter, JJ., concur. Taylor, C. J., absent on account of sickness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Masser v. The London Operating Co., 106 Fla. 474 (Fla. 1932)…ant in the lower court, and direct a dismissal of the bill. Norris vs. Eikenberry, 103 Fla. 104, 137 So. 128; Cook vs. Pontious, 98 Fla. 373, 123 So. 765; Micou vs. McDonald, 55 Fla. 776, 46 So. 291; City of Jacksonville vs. Massey Business College, 47 Fla. 339, 36 So. 432; Williams vs. Peeples, 48 Fla. 316, 37 So. 572; Hendry vs. Whidden, 48 Fla. 268, 37 So. 571; McNeill vs. Lyons, 140 So. 921. The action of the court in the instant case in dismissing the cause was tantamount to a reconsideration and rev…
-
Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1909)…the court may make appropriate orders with reference to such defective pleading even though the question of the sufficiency of the pleading is not in any way presented to the court for its action. See City of Jacksonville v. Massey Business College, 47 Fla. 339, 36 South. Rep. 432; Florida Packing Ice Co. v. Carney, 49 Fla. 293, 38 South. Rep. 602. It is not the policy of the law to grant divorces for post nuptial causes short of marital infidelity when such causes do not in fact render one of the parties…
-
Norris v. Jonas Eikenberry, 103 Fla. 104 (Fla. 1931)…Court, the court will take notice of the insufficiency of the bill although the appellants have not noticed it. Cook v. Pontious, 98 Fla. 373, 123 So. 765; Micou v. McDonald, 55 Fla. 776, 46 So. 291, City of Jacksonville v. Massey Business College, 47 Fla. 339, 36 So. 432; Williams v. Peeples, 48 Fla. 316, 37 So. 572. The order appealed from is affirmed and the cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the bill without prejudice. Per Curiam. The record in this cause having been considered by the cou…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Pinney v. Pinney, 46 Fla. 559 (Fla. 1903)
- Parker v. Dekle, 46 Fla. 452 (Fla. 1903)
- Sauls v. Freeman, 24 Fla. 209 (Fla. 1888)
- Telfair Stockton v. The Nat'l Bank of Jacksonville, 45 Fla. 590 (Fla. 1903)
- Trs. of the Internal Improvement Fund of Fla. v. Gleason, 39 Fla. 771 (Fla. 1897)
- McMillan v. Wiley, 45 Fla. 487 (Fla. 1903)
- Richardson v. Gilbert, 21 Fla. 544 (Fla. 1885)
- Griffin v. Orman, 9 Fla. 22 (Fla. 1860)
- Simeon N. Freeman v. Timanus, 12 Fla. 393 (Fla. 1868)
- Baldwin v. Tucker, 16 Fla. 258 (Fla. 1877)