ANDREW J. WILLIAMS AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF BERRYAN CAUGHRAN, AND AS GUARDIAN FOR ELIZA CAUGHRAN AND STEPHEN CAUGHRAN, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH H. PEEPLES, 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 circuit court's order referring a cattle dispute case to a master for further testimony, finding that the case lacked grounds for equitable jurisdiction and should have been dismissed. The court held that adequate remedies at law existed and that the alleged insolvency of the defendant—the sole potential basis for equitable intervention—was contradicted by uncontroverted testimony.
The court held that the case lacked adequate grounds for equitable jurisdiction because: (1) the allegations did not present complicated or voluminous accounting or other grounds for equitable intervention; (2) adequate remedy at law existed; and (3) the alleged insolvency was expressly denied in the answer and contradicted by uncontroverted testimony showing the defendant was solvent.
“The allegations of the bill do not present a case of complicated or voluminous accounting, or other ground for equitable intervention, and there is adequate remedy at law for the rights asserted.”
Establishes that the court found no sufficient ground for equitable jurisdiction because the case involved simple property rights with adequate legal remedies available.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, as administrator and guardian, filed an equity bill against the appellee alleging wrongful interference with cattle stocks and claiming…
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 Intervention cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
A bill in equity was filed in the Circuit Court for DeSoto county by the appellant against the appellee in which it is alleged that the appellee is insolvent, and is in various ways wrongfully interfering with the stocks of cattle legally under control of the appellant, and that appellee claims title to some of such cattle. The prayer is for an injunction to restrain the appellee and his agents, servants and employes from in any way interfering with said cattle, and that the sales of such cattle made by one Walter Elint to appellee be declared null and void, and for an accounting. The defendant answered, and testimony was taken. The court found that the appellee had title by purchase to some of the cattle, and referred the cause to a master to take further testimony as to the number and value of certain other cattle involved. An appeal was taken from this order, and it is assigned here as error. The allegations of the bill do not present a case of complicated or voluminous accounting, or other ground for equitable intervention, and there is adequate remedy at law for the rights asserted. Doke v. Peek, 45 Fla. 244, 34 South. Rep. 896, and authorities cited therein. It is true insolvency is alleged, but this is expressly denied in the answer, and the uncontradicted testimony shows that the defendant was solvent. The question of insolvency, then, as a ground of equitable cognizance is not presented here.
Where it appears upon the face of the bill of complaint that there is a plain and adequate remedy at law and that no ground for equitable intervention is shown, an appellate court may notice such defect although it has been ignored in the pleadings, assignments of error and argument, and the cause may be remanded with directions to dismiss the bill. City of Jacksonville v. Massey Business College, 47 Fla. 339, 36 South. Rep. 432.
The order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the bill of complaint, without prejudice to the right of appellant to proceed at law; the appellant to pay the costs of this appeal.
Taylor, C. J., Shackleford and Cockrell, JJ., concur. Carter, J., absent.
Hocker, J., dissents.
Hocker, J.,
(dissenting). — The bill in this case alleges facts and contains prayers for discovery and accounting, which, in my opinion, in the absence of any direct attack upon the equity jurisdiction of the court, entitle the parties to have the cause disposed of upon its merits. See authorities cited in dissenting opinion in the case of Hendry v. Whidden, decided at the present term.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Masser v. The London Operating Co., 106 Fla. 474 (Fla. 1932)…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 reversal of its action on the demurrer to bill. F…
-
Norris v. Jonas Eikenberry, 103 Fla. 104 (Fla. 1931)…fficiency 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 court and the foregoing opinion prepared under Ch…
-
Micou v. McDonald, 55 Fla. 776 (Fla. 1908)…Gleason, 39 Fla. 771, 23 South. Rep. 539; McMillan v. Wiley, 45 Fla. 487, 33 South. Rep. 993; McMillan v. Frary, 45 Fla. 486, 33 South. Rep. 995; City of Jacksonville v. Massey Business College, 47 Fla. 339, 36 South. Rep. 432; Williams v. Peeples, 48 Fla. 316, 37 South. Rep. 572; Florida Packing & Ice Co. v. Carney, 49 Fla. 293, 38 South. Rep. 602. It follows from what is said above -that the court below erred1 in granting the temporary injunction and in the rendition of the final decree, and it is, the…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The City of Jacksonville v. The Massey Bus. Coll., 47 Fla. 339 (Fla. 1904)
- Doke v. Peek, 45 Fla. 244 (Fla. 1903)