T. N. CREVELING, APPELLANT,
v.
E. C. CHAMBERS, 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.
Creveling sought specific performance and injunctive relief against Chambers and his corporation to enforce an alleged contract for building rock roads and founding a town. The trial court sustained a general demurrer to the bill and dismissed it, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the bill failed to allege essential facts necessary for equitable relief.
The decree dismissing the bill was affirmed. The court held that Creveling's bill failed to allege the essential facts necessary to entitle him to relief in equity, particularly where fraud or specific performance was sought, and that every presumption is against the bill when passing on a demurrer.
“It is incumbent upon a complainant to allege in his bill every fact, clearly and definitely, that is necessary to entitle him to relief; and if he omits essential facts therefrom, or states such facts therein as show that he is not entitled to relief in a court of equity, he must suffer the consequences of his so doing.”
Establishes the foundational requirement that equity complaints must plead all essential facts necessary for relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCreveling filed a bill in chancery against E. C. Chambers and Chambers Land Company, alleging an oral or written contract requiring the defendants to …
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 Pleading Fraud cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This is still another case in which the appellees have failed to file any brief. See Bolles v. Carson, decided here at the present term.
Creveling filed .his bill in chancery against E. C. Chambers and Chambers Land Company, a corporation, seeking to require the defendants to comply with the terms of an alleged contract with the complainant to build certain rock roads, found a town site and build the town and also other specific relief, including an injunction, as well as general relief. A general demurrer was sustained to the bill and subsequently, the complainant declining to amend, a decree was rendered dismissing the bill. The complainant has entered his appeal from such final decree.
As we held in McClinton v. Chapin, 54 Fla. 510, 45 South. Rep. 35, 14 Ann. Cas. 365, “It is incumbent upon a complainant to allege in his bill every fact, clearly and definitely, that is necessary to entitle him to relief; and if he omits essential facts therefrom, or states such facts therein as show that he is not entitled to relief in a court of equity, he must suffer the.consequences of his so doing. “A bill in equity must state facts and not opinions or legal conclusions, and where fraud is relied upon the allegations or charges must be specific. In passing upon a demurrer to a bill every presumption is against the bill.” In Godwin v. Phifer, 51 Fla. 441, 41 South. Rep. 597, we held that these principles were especially applicable to bills seeking an injunction. We have examined the bill and exhibits attached thereto in the light of these principles and are of the opinion that the decree should be affirmed.
• Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (27 total)
-
Tyson v. State, 87 Fla. 392 (Fla. 1924)…of the prosecutrix and her age. It was not cumulative, and should produce upon another trial a different result if true. The defendant and his counsel used due diligence and discovered the evidence after the trial. See Herndon v. State, 73 Fla. 451, 74 South. Rep. 511; Dixon v. State, 77 Fla. 143, 80 South. Rep. 741; Howard v. State, 36 Fla. 21, 17 South. Rep. 84; Adams v. State, 55 Fla. 1, 46 South. Rep. 152. In the last cited case the court' speaking through Mr. Justice Hocker, expressed the view that while th…
-
Taylor v. State, 139 Fla. 542 (Fla. 1939)…contradictory statements as to material testimony, and the law grants a trial court broad discretion in cross examination on questions affecting motive, interest or animus. See Nelso v. State, 99 Fla. 1037, 128 So. 1; Herndon v. State, 73 Fla. 451, 74 So. 511;.Tully v. State, 69 Fla. 662, 68 So. [*550] 934; Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 So. 713; Mercer v. State, 40 Fla. 216, 24 So. 154. Counsel for plaintiff in error, during the progress of the trial, offered into evidence a chair taken from the hom…
-
Killingsworth v. State, 90 Fla. 299 (Fla. 1925)…o the merits of the case, and they are in part cumulative, at least as to the witness Beard. See Judge v. Moore, 9 Fla. 269; Howard v. State, 36-21, 17 South. Rep. 84; Williams v. State, 68 Fla. 88, 66 South. Rep. 424, Herndon v. State, 73 Fla. 451, 74 South. Rep. 511; Long v. State, 42 Fla. 612, 28 South. Rep. 855. The information was not defective, and there 'is no basis for the motion in arrest of judgment. We discover nothing in the record proper to support the averment that the Judge who tried the case was…
Previewing 3 of 27 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Godwin v. Phifer, 51 Fla. 441 (Fla. 1906)
- McClinton v. Chapin, 54 Fla. 510 (Fla. 1907)