ROBERT H. MCNEILL AND THOMAS A. POOLE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE, ETC., APPELLANTS,
v.
BURNEY V. LYONS, ELLA A. WARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE W. WARD, DECEASED, ETC., 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 addressed whether a defendant's solicitor may acquire a tax deed to land held by court-appointed receivers and use that acquisition to obtain dismissal of the complainant's bill. The Court held that while the bill should be dismissed for lack of equitable cognizance, the order directing receivers to deliver possession to the tax deed holder—who was not a party to the suit—was improper.
The order dismissing the bill as to the described lands was affirmed because the bill stated no ground of equitable cognizance. However, the order directing the receivers to deliver possession to the tax deed holder was reversed because the holder was not a party to the suit and the court had acquired no jurisdiction to determine his rights against the parties to the suit.
“the solicitor for defendants may acquire a tax deed to certain lands then in possession of Receivers under order of court made in the case in which such holder of tax deed is solicitor for the defendants”
Statement of the central legal question presented by the appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReceivers were appointed by court order to take possession of certain land during litigation. While the suit was pending, the solicitor for the defend…
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 Jurisdiction Over Non-Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal here is from an order of the chancellor in which the chancellor dismissed the bill of complaint as to a certain tract o'f land and directing Receivers theretofore appointed to deliver possession of that tract of land to the holder of a tax deed, such holder having acquired the deed during the pendency of the suit and while he was solicitor for the defendants in the suit in which the land was involved.
The question sought to be presented to this Court is whether or not the solicitor for defendants may acquire a tax deed to certain lands then in possession of Receivers under order of court made in the case in which such holder of tax deed is solicitor for the defendants and by petition filed in the cause to which cause he is not a party, procure an order of court dismissing the bill of complaint as to that particular land embraced in the tax deed and requireing the Receivers to deliver possession thereof to the solicitor holding such tax deed. .
An examination of the bill of complaint shows that it states no ground of equitable cognizance and, therefore, the entire bill of complaint should have been dismissed.
Where there is no equity in a bill of complaint, and for that reason it should be dismissed, it is not reversible error for the chancellor to dismiss the bill as to any item contained therein. The appellate court is not concerned with the reasons which may influence the ehancello'r in making an order but is only concerned with the order and the result thereof. Therefore, the reason for which the chancellor dismissed the bill as to a certain tract of land described therein becomes immaterial when there are no al*245legations in the bill warranting the intervention of equity as to any of the lands described in such bill.
The order of the chancellor should be affirmed' insofar as it dismissed the Bill of Complaint as to certain described lands, but the order appealed from must be reversed insofar as it directed’ the Receivers to deliver possession of the therein described lands to the holder of the tax deed who was not a party to the suit and whose rights as between himself and the parties to the suit the court had acquired no' jurisdiction to determine. The cause should then be remanded, with directions that the entire bill of complaint be dismissed without prejudice to the complainants to otherwise pursue their remedies against the defendants in law or in equity and in accordance with law and the rules of practice. It is so ordered.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
■Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
Brown, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part) —The bill was fearfully and wonderfully made, but I think it has some equity in it—for an accounting, quieting o'f title and receivership. I concur in the holding that the chancellor erred in making the orders appealed from, but I do not think the entire bill should be ordered dismissed.
Brown, J.,
(concurring in part and dissenting in part) —The bill was fearfully and wonderfully made, but I think it has some equity in it—for an accounting, quieting o'f title and receivership. I concur in the holding that the chancellor erred in making the orders appealed from, but I do not think the entire bill should be ordered dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Masser v. The London Operating Co., 106 Fla. 474 (Fla. 1932)…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. For a breach of a lessor’s covenant, the lessee may have an action at law for his damages.…1 / 2
-
Johnson v. Emil Metzinger, 116 Fla. 262 (Fla. 1934)…to recover possession [*279] of lands under a legal title, and for mesne profits, could not be maintained in equity that all of these issues could be determined and tried in a court of law. Appellants also cite the recent case of McNeill v. Lyons, 105 Fla. 243, 140 So. 921, which, in principle, is a case closely in point. We there held that an order made in an equity suit directing a receiver to deliver possession of lands to the holder of a tax deed, who was not a party to the suit, and over whose rights…