J. B. PEACOCK AND C. H. HARGRAVES, APPELLANTS,
v.
D. H. IRVINE, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF J. L. FEASTER, DECEASED, ET AL., 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 a lower court's decision to refuse a temporary injunction, holding that the facts presented were available as a legal defense in a common law action and did not necessitate equitable relief.
Yes, the facts relied upon in the bill for injunction were available as a legal defense to the common law action upon proper pleadings, and there was no occasion to resort to equity.
“It was there held that the facts relied on in the bill for injunction were available as a legal defense to the common law action upon proper pleadings and that there was no occasion to resort to equity to obtain the relief.”
Establishes the core legal principle that equitable relief is not warranted if adequate legal defenses exist.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants sought an injunction to prevent proceedings in a common law trover action. The core issue was whether the facts supporting the injunction c…
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 Common Law Action cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam:
The only material distinction between this case and the kindred case of Peacock & Hargraves v. Feaster, et al., decided at this term is in the fact that the latter had gone into judgment while in this final judgment had not been entered in the action of trover. Upon a review of the opinion then filed it will be readily observed that the distinction creates no difference in principle. It was there held that the facts relied on in the bill for injunction were available as a legal defense to the common law action upon proper pleadings and that there was no occasion to resort to equity to obtain the relief.
We cannot hold the Circuit 'Court in error in refusing a temporary injunction upon this bill and the answer, and! the interlocutory decree is, therefore, affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., Taylor, Cockrell, Whitfield and Parkhill, J. J., concur;
Hocker, J., disqualified.