JAMES M. MEFFERT, APPELLANT,
v.
WITHERED B. THOMAS, 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.
In this equity case involving title to land in Marion County, the trial court dismissed the complainant's bill to remove clouds on title without prejudice after both parties failed to introduce evidence. The defendant-appellant challenged this dismissal, arguing it should have been made with prejudice as a final adjudication, but the Florida Supreme Court held that the trial court's discretion to dismiss without prejudice was properly exercised.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the bill without prejudice. The trial court had sound judicial discretion to shape its decree either as a final adjudication or to dismiss without prejudice, enabling the complainant to relitigate under more favorable conditions. Appellate courts will not disturb rulings within the trial court's sound judicial discretion unless there is a clear abuse materially detrimental to the affected party.
“Under the circumstances disclosed by the record it was a matter within the sound judicial discretion of the court below as to whether he would so shape his decree as to make it a final adjudication of the controversy between the parties, or dismiss the complainant's bill without prejudice”
Establishes that the trial court had discretion to choose between dismissing with or without prejudice
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 filed a bill in equity in Marion County Circuit Court seeking removal of clouds on his title to certain lands. The appellant defendant an…
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 Sound Judicial Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
Taylor, J.
The appellee filed his bill in equity in the Circuit Court of. Marion County against the appellant for the removal of alleged clouds upon the title of appellee to certain lands located-in Marion County. The -appellant, defendant below, answered the bill denying the alleged possession and title of the complainant to the lands in question, set up adverse title in himself, by mesne conveyances from the original grantees of the State, and also title by undisturbed possession for more than seven years. General replication was filed. Several extensions of time for taking testimony in the case were granted to the parties and a master appointed to take the same, but the parties, both complainant and defendant failed to introduce any evidence, and the cause, on the motion of defendant below, was set down for final hearing on bill, answer and replication. The court entered a decree at the hearing dismissing the bill at complainant’s costs but without prejurice.
From the decree dismissing the bill mthout prejudice, the defendant below appeals here, assigning as error the “without prejudice” feature of the court’s decree, contending that the decree should have been made absolute so as to operate as a final adjudication of the controversy.
We cannot adjudge this to be error. Under the circumstances disclosed by the record it was a matter within the sound judicial discretion of the court below as to whether he would so shape his decree as to make it a.final adjudi cation of the controversy between the parties, or dismiss the complainant’s bill without prejudice, thereby enabling him to relitigate the matter under more fortuitous conditions so far as proper attention to his case is concerned. It has been held here repeatedly, as well as elsewhere, that rulings resting within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court will not be disturbed by an appellate court unless it clearly appears that there has been an abuse of such discretion to the material detriment of the party affected by the ruling. Ahren v. Willis, 6 Fla. 359; Da-Costa v. Dibble, 40 Fla. 418, 24 South. Rep. 911; Robbins v. Hanbury, 37 Fla. 468, 19 South. Rep. 886; Long v. Anderson, 48 Fla. 279, 37 South. Rep. 216; Lykes v. Beauchamp, 49 Fla. 333, 38 South. Rep. 603.
In the condition in which the record stood before the chancellor at the final hearing had in this case it was impossible, in the absence of any evidence whatever, for the court to pass upon the real merits of the controversy between the parties, and we do not think that from the standpoint of justice and equity, there was any abuse of judicial discretion in saving to the complainant the right to relitigate the matter, as was done by the decree of dismissal without prejudice.
The decree of the court below in said cause is hereby affirmed at the cost of the apellant.
Hocker and Parki-iill, JJ., concur. Shackleford, C. J., and Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Masser v. The London Operating Co., 106 Fla. 474 (Fla. 1932)…material detriment of the party affected by the ruling.” Phillips vs. Lindsay, 102 Fla. 935, 136 So. 666; Veillard vs. City of St. Petersburg, 87 Fla. 381, 100 So. 163; Tilgham Cypress Co. vs. Young Co., 60 Fla. 382, 53 So. 939; Meffert vs. Thomas, 51 Fla. 492, 40 So. 764. While every dismissal upon a' final hearing is not necessarily an adjudication on the merits, yet the rule is that where the cause is at issue, and on final hearing, either upon pleadings and testimony, after the time for taking testim…1 / 2
-
Demos v. Walker, 99 Fla. 302 (Fla. 1930)…ss upon the real merits of the controversy between the parties, there is no abuse of discretion if the court grants a motion by complainant to be allowed to dismiss her bill without prejudice to her right to relitigate the matter. Meffert v. Thomas, 51 Fla. 492, 40 So. R. 764; Merchon v. Varnard, 79 Fla. 253, 84 So. R. 95. We are inclined to think that there was error in the decree as rendered in this case. By finding the equities to be with the defendant, the court below suffers a plaintiff in execution…
-
Tilghman Cypress Co. v. John R. Young Co., 60 Fla. 382 (Fla. 1910)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ahren v. Willis, 6 Fla. 359 (Fla. 1855)
- DaCosta v. Dibble, 40 Fla. 418 (Fla. 1898)
- Long v. Herbert L. Anderson for Elizabeth B. Anderson, 48 Fla. 279 (Fla. 1904)
- Lykes v. Beauchamp, 49 Fla. 333 (Fla. 1905)
- Robbins v. Hanbury, 37 Fla. 468 (Fla. 1896)