MARGARET O'GARA, APPELLANT,
v.
SIMEON S. HANCOCK AND GRANT U. CONANT, 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.
Margaret O'Gara appealed an order by the Chancellor extending the time for taking testimony in an equity suit. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the extension, holding that trial judges have broad discretion to extend discovery deadlines when necessary to ensure just resolution, and such orders will not be reversed absent clear abuse of discretion.
The Chancellor did not abuse his discretion in extending the time for taking testimony. Trial judges possess broad discretion in extending deadlines for testimony in equity suits, and such orders will not be reversed unless an abuse of discretion is plainly made to appear.
“a Court is always reluctant in refusing such a motion in a case of conflict of evidence as it wánts all material evidence that can be produced and dislikes to have to decide a case as long as there may be further evidence that may throw light”
Establishes the Chancellor's reasoning for granting the extension—the need for all available material evidence in a case with conflicting evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis equity case experienced delays in presenting evidence, and the time for taking testimony was extended one or more times by consent. The Chancello…
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 Chancellor'S Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
Browne, C. J.
This is an appeal from, an order of the Chancellor extending the time for taking testimony.
There was some delay in presenting the evidence in this case and the time for taking testimony was extended one or more times by consent.
The order appealed from is as follows: “This cause came on originally December 11, 1916, on motion to be allowed to take further testimony. The Court could not at that time hear same on account of their being engaged in trying a case. The files were then taken by counsel and briefs are just now sent me. It seems proper to recite above that delay be not chargeable to defendants. I have uow carefully examined record and motion and briefs thereon and' while there is much that can be said for and against a motion of this kind, by counsel on either side, yet a Court is always reluctant in refusing such a motion in a case of conflict of evidence as it wánts all material evidence that can be produced and dislikes to have to decide a case as long as there may be further evidence that may throw light.
“It is therefore ordered that the Master set a reasonable time to take the further evidence, if any of either party, and report.”
Rule 71 of the Circuit Courts in Equity Actions provides that three months and' no more shall be allowed for the taking of testimony after a cause is at issue “unless the Judge shall upon special cause shown by either party enlarge the time.” Large discretion is al lowed the. Chancellor in the matter of extending time for the taking of testimony in an equity suit and this Court has laid down the rule that the action of the Chancellor in this respect will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is plainly made to appear. Magbee v. Kennedy, 26 Fla. 158, 7 South. Rep. 529; McMillan v. Warren, 59 Fla. 578, 52 South. Rep. 825; Thompson v. Thompson, decided at the January, 1918, term of this Court.
While the speedy determination of civil causes is to be desired, still it is more imperative that they be decided justly, and where the Chancellor considers that it will better enable him to do this if additional time be granted to produce the testimony, his order ought not to be reversed.
The rules of practice are for the purpose of aiding in the speedy determination of causes; Courts are established for the higher purpose of administration of justice. Where the strict enforcement of the letter of the rules of practice tends, in the opinion of the trial judge, to prevent or jeopardize the latter, the rules should yield to the higher purpose. For this reason the trial judge is given much discretion in the matter of extending time for taking testimony, and unless he has clearly abused this discretion his order should not be reversed. We do not think there was an abuse of discretion by the Chancellor ; and the order appealed from is affirmed.
Whitfield and West, J. J., concur. Taylor and Ellis, J. J., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Demos v. Walker, 99 Fla. 302 (Fla. 1930)…the administration of justice; that where the strict enforcement of the letter of the rules of practice tends, in the opinion of the trial judge, to prevent or jeopardize the latter, the rules, should yield to the higher purpose. O ’Gara v. Hancock, 76 Fla. 1, 79 So. R. 168. Undoubtedly it was the duty of the complainant’s solicitor unless prevented for good and sufficient reasons, to have applied for an extension of time before the expiration of the three months period. The affidavit as to the loss of…
-
Powers v. State, 224 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…CrPR, states the purpose thus: “These rules are intended to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding. They shall be construed to secure simplicity in procedure and fairness in administration.” Cf. O’Gara v. Hancock, 76 Fla. 1, 79 So. 167 (1918); Baker-Lewis Const. Co. v. Midyette, 105 Fla. 502, 141 So. 534 (1932). In the pursuit of this purpose the rules are not mechanical mandates of operating procedure but must be interpreted in the interest of substantial justice. Especially wher…
-
Grip Dev., Inc. v. Coldwell Banker Residential Real Est., Inc., 788 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…e letter of the rules of practice tends, in the opinion of the trial judge, to prevent or jeopardize the latter, the rules should yield to the higher purpose.” Demos v. Walker, 99 Fla. 302, 126 So. 305 (1930); see also O’Gara v. Hancock, 76 Fla. 1, 79 So. 167 (1918). More recently the court stated the same policy thus: “Although there is no question that ... rules are not to be ignored to rectify counsels’ mistakes, if justice to all parties is not thereby denied, in special circumstances, special conce…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McMillan v. Godfrey S. Warren, 59 Fla. 578 (Fla. 1910)
- Magbee v. Kennedy, 26 Fla. 158 (Fla. 1890)