W. C. MCCALL, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
HUGH M. MATHESON, 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.
Matheson sought equitable relief in a bill challenging seven purported judgments for costs entered by Justice McCall, claiming they were fraudulently issued without due process. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower court's overruling of a demurrer, holding that an adequate remedy at law exists for erroneous judgments and illegal levy of executions.
An adequate remedy at law exists for an erroneous judgment and alleged illegal levy of execution, and therefore no ground for equitable relief has been alleged. The demurrer should have been sustained.
“it is clear that there is an adequate remedy at law for an erroneous judgment and for an alleged illegal levy of execution "upon the property of" the complainant, and that no ground for equitable relief' is alleged”
The court's holding that legal remedies are sufficient and equity lacks jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJustice McCall issued seven summons to Matheson in separate actions brought by different plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed motions to dismiss in all seven …
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 Erroneous Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
Matheson filed a hill in equity alleging that McCall as a justice of the peace issued seven several summons ad respondendum directed to Matheson wherein seven different named persons respectively were plaintiffs; that said summons were served on Matheson who appeared in the actions; that the plaintiffs filed motions to dismiss the said, actions at the cost of the several plaintiffs; that McCall disregarding the motions, and without due process of law, entered up seven purported judgments against Matheson for costs in stated amounts in said seven actions, and issued seven several writs of execution against Matheson for court costs and placed them in the hands of the sheriff for collection; that McCall fraudulently and without due process of law entered said judgments for costs against Matheson, who says that said judgments and the executions issued thereon are null, void and of no effect; that the defendant Sheriff “now has the said seven writs of execution in his hands and is threatening to levy the same upon the property of complainant, thus causing him great inconvenience, loss and detriment.” It is prayed that McCall be required to show his authority for entering said purported judgments, and that said judgments be can-celled; that the sheriff be restrained and enjoined from levying said writs of execution or taking any steps to enforce the purported judgments. A demurrer to the bill was overruled, and the defendants appealed therefrom.
Without considering any other question, it is clear that there is an adequate remedy at law for an erroneous judgment and for an alleged illegal levy of execution “upon the property of” the complainant, and that no ground for equitable relief' is alleged. See Metcalf v. Martin, 54 Fla. 531.
The order appealed from is reversed.
Shackleford, O. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wildwood Crate & Ice Co. v. The Citizens Bank of Inverness, 98 Fla. 186 (Fla. 1929)…would be inadequate or incomplete. The rule rests upon the principle that equity will not act when there is a full, adequate and complete remedy at law. Baldwin v. Tucker, 16 Fla. 258; Garcia v. Pardo, 63 Fla. 429, 57 So. R. 974; McCall v. Matheson, 66 Fla. 157, 63 So. R. 701. See also Odlin v. Woodruff, 31 Fla. 160, 12 So. R. 227; 22 L. R. A. 699; Metcalf v. Martin, 54 Fla. 531, 45 So. R. 463; 23 C. J. 553; 10 R. C. L. 1255; 32 C. J. 152. With respect to the mortgagee of chattels, the general rule also i…
-
Smith v. Powell, 80 Fla. 166 (Fla. 1920)…arnett v. Hickson, 52 Fla. 457, 41 South. Rep. 606; Peacock et al. v. Feaster et al., 52 Fla. 565, 42 South. Rep. 889; Metcalf Co. v. Martin, 54 Fla. 531, 45 South. Rep. 463; Simmons v. Williford, 60 Fla. 359, 53 South. Rep. 452; McCall v. Matheson, 66 Fla. 157, 63 South. Rep. 701. The orders appealed from are affirmed. Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitpifld and Ellis, J. J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- H. W. Metcalf Co. v. Martin, 54 Fla. 531 (Fla. 1907)