MARGARET WILLARD WILKINSON, AND J. L. WILKINSON, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
CENTRAL FARMERS TRUST COMPANY, A FLORIDA BANKING CORPORATION, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision to dismiss a bill of complaint without prejudice. The court held that the chancellor did not abuse discretion by dismissing the case after denying a motion to extend time for testimony, upholding the presumption of correctness for the chancellor's rulings.
No, the Chancellor did not abuse his discretion. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, relying on established precedent regarding the presumption of correctness for a Chancellor's rulings.
“The appeal in this case is from an order of the Chancellor dismissing the bill of complaint without prejudice after the case had been set down on bill and answer and the court had denied a motion for enlargement of time in which to take testimony.”
Describes the procedural posture and the order being appealed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants appealed an order from the Chancellor dismissing their bill of complaint without prejudice. This dismissal occurred after the case was …
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 Dismissal Without Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal in this case is from an order of the Chancellor dismissing the bill of complaint without prejudice after the case had been set down on bill and answer and the court had denied a motion for enlargement of time in which to take testimony.
The appellants contend that it was abuse of discretion for the court to dismiss the bill without prejudice. Appellants maintain that the bill should have been dismissed so as to cut off further litigation of the rights of the parties as alleged in the pleadings. We think the order appealed from should be affirmed on authority of the opinions and judgments in the cases of Meffert vs. Thomas, 51 Fla. 492, 40 Sou. 764; Tilghman Cypress Co. vs. Young, 60 Fla. 382, 53 Sou. 939; Mershon vs. Bernard, 79 Fla. 253, 84 Sou. 95.
It is well settled that this Court will act on presumption of the correctness of the Chancellor’s rule and will not change it, except in the clear case of mistake or hardship, particularly where the Chancellor was in position to understand fully what weight should 'be given to excuses for delay based on local conditions and usages. Magbee vs. Kennedy, 7 Sou. 529; 26 Fla. 158.
TFe order appealed from should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Bufobd, C.J., and Whitfield, Tebeell, Bbown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Ellis, J., dissents.
dissenting.—I think that the bill should have been dismissed as a finality. Dismissing without prejudice is merely prolonging the litigation without any showing in the record for its justification.
Ellis, J.,
dissenting.—I think that the bill should have been dismissed as a finality. Dismissing without prejudice is merely prolonging the litigation without any showing in the record for its justification.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tilghman Cypress Co. v. John R. Young Co., 60 Fla. 382 (Fla. 1910)
- Magbee v. Kennedy, 26 Fla. 158 (Fla. 1890)
- Meffert v. Withered B. Thomas, 51 Fla. 492 (Fla. 1906)
- Belle B. Mershon v. Barnard, 79 Fla. 253 (Fla. 1920)