J. W. CHARLES, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
W. W. APPLETON, 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 affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a bill in equity, finding sufficient evidence supported the dismissal and that the dismissal without prejudice allowed complainants to pursue other remedies.
No, the trial court did not err in dismissing the bill of complaint. There was ample evidence to sustain the decree.
“There may, or may not, be equities between the complainants and defendant Appleton if differently presented, but" upon -the pleadings and evidence in this case, no equity on behalf of complainants has been made to appear; it is therefore ordered that the bill of complaint be and the same is hereby dismissed without prejudice.”
The trial court's reasoning for dismissing the bill of complaint.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceComplainants J. W. Charles and A. C. Kline filed a bill in equity against W. W. Appleton and others, seeking to cancel a deed of conveyance as fraudul…
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 Cancellation Of Deed cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
J. W. Charles and A. C. Kline brought a bill in equity against W. W. Appleton and wife and Lizzie M. Slack and others. The purpose of the suit is to have the record of a deed of conveyance cancelled as being-a fraud upon an escrow agreement'. On the pleadings and evidence the court dismissed the bill as to Lizzie M. Slack and her husband. The decree contains the following :
“There may, or may not, be equities between the complainants and defendant Appleton if differently presented, but" upon -the pleadings and evidence in this case, no equity on behalf of complainants has been made to appear; it is therefore ordered that the bill of complaint be and the same is hereby dismissed without prejudice.” •
The complainants appealed and contend that 011 the evidence the decree should have been for the complainants. A discussion of the testimony would serve no useful purpose. There is ample evidence to sustain the decree made and as the dismissal of the bill as to the defendant Appleton is without prejudice, the complainant is at liberty to pursue any appropriate remedy to which he may be entitled in the premises under the law.
Affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur:
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tilton v. Horton, 103 Fla. 497 (Fla. 1931)…Fla. 590, 39 So. 695, it was held that where the language of a decree is open to more than one interpretation, it must be so interpreted as to make it proper with reference to the proceedings in the case. See also Huddleston v. Graham, 73 Fla. 350, 74 So. 414. We reach the conclusion that the whole record of the proceeding in the chancery suit shows that it was the intention and purpose of Judge Giblin to dismiss the chancery [*516] cause as to defendant Tilton “without prejudice”, and the final decree…
-
Holmes La Mar v. Lechlider, 135 Fla. 703 (Fla. 1939)…hoate right of dower. Estoppel works against married women as well as against persons sui juris, especially when they must claim under ano.ther who is estopped, as must be the case with the defendant, Sue T. LaMar. Huddleston v. Graham, 73 Fla. 350, 74 So. 414; Mexican Crude Rubber Co. v. Ackley, 101 Fla. 552, 134 So. 585; Maxwell v. Sullivan, 123 Fla. 263, 166 So. 575. And see McAdoo v. Moses, 101 Fla. 936, 132 So. 638. The wife should have no higher or greater right than her husband under such circumsta…
-
White v. Crandall, 105 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1931)…him in so far as it established the legal existence of the debt con [*92] stituting the basis of the mortgage lien which was enforced by decree of the court. As to the defendant, that decree is res. adjudicada. See Huddleston v. Graham, 73 Fla. 350, 74 South. Rep. 414. But the plea admits the existence of a consideration for the notes namely the purchase of the property by him and the conveyance of it to him, the title to which remained in him until it was divested by sale under foreclosure proceedings. The aver…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence