SAM H. HARTZELL, APPELLANT,
v.
SARAH Z. BRASH AND HENRY BRASH, HER HUSBAND, 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.
Sam Hartzell appealed the dismissal of his bill of complaint seeking an accounting and receivership in a business dispute with Sarah and Henry Brash. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, holding that Hartzell stated a valid claim for equitable relief based on an alleged partnership relationship rather than a mere creditor relationship.
The bill of complaint contained valid grounds for equitable relief. The relationship between Hartzell and the Brashes was one of partnership, not that of a creditor, based on the written contract providing for mutual profit sharing and equal division of profits. A general demurrer for want of equity should be overruled if any ground of equitable relief is stated in the bill.
“A general demurrer to the bill, as for want of equity, will be overruled if there is any ground of equitable relief stated in the bill, even if there are any number of grounds of special demurrer.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing demurrers in equity cases—any stated ground for equitable relief defeats a general demurrer for want of equity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHartzell filed a bill of complaint against the Brashes seeking an accounting of amounts advanced by each party to a business venture, appointment of a…
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 Accounting cases and more on FLexlaw
Parkhill, J.
The appellant filed a bill of complaint, as amended, in the circuit court in and for Hillsborough county against the appellees praying that accounting may be had between the complainant and defendants as to the amounts advanced by each of them, and that the assets of the business may be used to pay the indebtedness of the same, and the moneys advanced by complainant on account of the same; and that a receiver may be appointed to take charge of the assets of the business, collect the outstanding accounts, convert the assets into cash and hold the same pending the further order of the court, and that the defendants be restrained from receiving the mail or endorsing or converting into money any checks, drafts, &c., until further order of the court. The chancellor granted a temporary order restraining the defendants or either of them from collecting its debts, or endorsing its checks or disposing of its assets, and sustained a demurrer to the bill. Upon motion of defendants the bill of complaint was dismissed and the temporary restraining order was dissolved, and from this order and decree the complainant appealed.
The assignments allege error in the sustaining of the demurrer to the bill of complaint, granting the motion to dissolve the injunction and the holding there was no equity in the bill.
A general demurrer to the bill, as for want of equity, will be overruled if there is any ground of equitable relief stated in the bill, even if there are any number of grounds of special demurrer. Thompson v. Maxwell, 16 Fla., 773; Herrin v. Brown, 44 Fla., 782, 33 South. Rep., 522.
The practice of moving to dismiss bills for want of equity does not obtain in this State. Hull v. Burr et al., decided at this term.
We think the bill contained equity. The relation of the complainant to the defendants was not that of a creditor as is contended, but of partnership. The contract between the parties provided: “The purpose of this agreement is for a mutual profit of the enterprise, that a strict account shall be kept by the party of the second part of the entire full amount required in manufacturing the goods, and after the goods are sold and collection of said sales are made the profit be divided in equal amounts between both the party of the first part and party of the second part.”
The decree and order appealed from are reversed.
Taylor and Hocker, J. J., concur;
Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Herrin v. Brown, 44 Fla. 782 (Fla. 1902)
- Thompson v. Maxwell, 16 Fla. 773 (Fla. 1878)