ALBERT S. J. MARSH AND GEORGE MARSH, APPELLANTS,
v.
J. E. J. MARSH, 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 reversed an order that sustained exceptions to a bill of complaint, finding that the expunged paragraphs were not scandalous, immaterial, or impertinent and were necessary to detail the alleged fraudulent conduct.
No, the paragraphs detailing the fraudulent conduct were not scandalous, immaterial, or impertinent, and therefore should not have been expunged. The order sustaining the exceptions was erroneous.
“The paragraphs of the bill of complaint that were expunged by sustaining the exceptions are not scandalous and it cannot be said that they are wholly immaterial or impertinent, since they give particulars of the fraudulent conduct on which the relief is sought.”
Establishes that the expunged material was relevant and necessary for the claim.
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 to vacate an order confirming a land sale in a partition proceeding. They alleged fraudulent conduct by a party to the partition sui…
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 Fraudulent Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
This appeal is from an order sustaining “Exceptions” taken to a bill of complaint. The bill seeks to vacate an order confirming a sale of lands made in a partition proceeding on the grounds of fraudulent conduct on the part of one of the parties to the suit for partition which resulted in a sale of the property at a grossly inadequate price far below its real value at the time.
The paragraphs of the bill of complaint that were expunged by sustaining the exceptions are not scandalous and it cannot be said that they are wholly immaterial or impertinent, since they give particulars of the fraudulent conduct on which the relief is sought. Without considering the propriety of the procedure in taking the “exceptions to the bill of complaint,” the order which in effect struck from the bill the designated matters set up as a basis for the relief sought is erroneous and is reversed. Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hocker, J. 0., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marsh v. Marsh, 72 Fla. 142 (Fla. 1916)…Per Curiam. —This is the second appeal that has been prosecuted in this case. See Marsh v. Marsh, 68 Fla. 355, 67 South. Rep. 81, which was an appeal from an interlocutory order sustaining “exceptions taken to the bill of complaint.” As we said in the opinion rendered on the former appeal: “The bill seeks to vacate [*144] an order confirming a sale of lands…