FRANCES M. KING AND OTHERS APPELLANTS,
v.
ERASTUS A. BARNARD, 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.
This case concerns whether a lis pendens notice filed on a cross-bill, which was combined with an answer, is valid. The court held that despite the irregular pleading format, the cross-bill was not a nullity and the lis pendens was properly filed.
Yes, a lis pendens notice filed on a cross-bill is valid even if the cross-bill is combined with an answer in the same pleading. The other party cannot simply ignore the cross-bill and have the lis pendens struck.
“Assuming that it is an irregularity to combine in one pleading an answer and a cross-bill, we do not understand that the vice is so great as to render the cross-bill a nullity, and to be ignored”
Establishes the court's view on the pleading irregularity.
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 pleading containing both an answer and a cross-bill. The appellants moved to strike a lis pendens notice filed on the cross-bill,…
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 General Appearance cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
To a bill filed to quiet title, Barnard, the appellee here, interposed an answer, and also immediately following the answer in the same pleading a cross-bill with much the same allegations as in the answer, praying affirmative relief and process. The complainants in the original bill promptly set the cause down upon bill and answer, and obtained a decree, in which no reference was made to the cross-bill. Barnard then had recorded in the Clerk’s office a Us pendens up'On his cross-bill. The complainants thereupon moved the court to strike the Us pendens, treating it as a pleading on file. Tlie court refused to strike the Us pendens and ordered the complainants to plead to the cross-bill, from which order this appeal is taken.
Assuming that it is an irregularity to combine in one pleading an answer and a cross-bill, we do not understand that the vice is so great as to render the cross-bill a nullity, and to be ignored; the pleader ran the risk of having his pleading as a whole treated summarily perhaps, but the other party could not by his own ipse dixit, recognize the one and ignore the other, and thereby place the latter beyond the pale of the court. The pleader has still the right to a ruling by the trial court upon his pleading, and in a form to be reviewed by the appellate court; and on this record the Circuit Court has correctly found that as to the cross-bill there had never been a hearing or disposition; it was still pending and the lis pendens was properly on the record. We do not mean to decide that the lis pendens notice recorded in the Clerk’s office, is in the proper meaning of the word, a pleading in a cause, though it seems to be so considered by the parties now before us.
Despite the form of the motion to strike the lis pendens notice, the theory of it is that the cross-bill is not properly a pleading before the court; the whole contest revolved around this point, and so we find no error in the treatment of the motion as a general appearance to the cross-bill.
Order affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Gulf Ref. Co. v. Wilkinson, 94 Fla. 664 (Fla. 1927)…A joint tort is essential to a joint action for damages therefor against several parties, and where the evidence fails to show a joint liability, a joint judgment is erroneous and will be reversed. Standard Phosphate Co. v. [*672] Dunn, 66 Fla. 220, 63 So. 429; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Allen, 67 Fla. 247, 65 So. 8. As the evidence fails to show that the driver of the truck was the servant, employee or agent of the defendant Gulf Befining Company, in the light of the authorities above quoted, the joint verdic…
-
Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mallory Johnson Allen, 67 Fla. 257 (Fla. 1914)…Mass. 238, 91 N. E. Rep. 317; Nelson v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 98 Mass. 295, 53 South. Rep. 619; Cuddy v. Horn, 46 Mich. 596, 10 N. W. Rep. 32; Sircey v. Hans Rees’ Sons, 155 N. C. 296, 71 S. E. Rep. 310. Standard Phosphate Co. v. Lunn, 66 Fla. 220, 63 South. Rep. 429, cited and relied upon by the plaintiff to support his contention, does not conflict with what we have said herein, but, on the contrary, harmonizes with and tends to support the principles which we have just above stated. See also Symmes v. Prairie…
-
McDaniel v. Harrell, 81 Fla. 66 (Fla. 1921)…5 South. Rep. 246; F. E. C. Ry. v. Chesser, 77 Fla. 57, 80 South. Rep. 750. National Surety Co. v. Williams, 74 Fla. 446, 77 South. Rep. 212; Tampa & J. R. Co. v. Crawford, 67 Fla. 77, 64 South. Rep. 437; Standard Phosphate Co. v. Lunn, 66 Fla. 220, 63 South. Rep. 429. The defense interposed by this plea is that the defendant in imposing sentence upon plaintiff was acting officially as mayor of the city under authority of the charter and ordinance of the city in the exercise of judicial power conferred upon the…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence