E. L. LESLEY, JENNIE K. LESLEY, HIS WIFE, W. C. BASS, ARAMINTA E. BASS, HIS WIFE. AND KISSIMMEE CATTLE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
T. J. PARKER, 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.
This case concerns the sufficiency of a bill in equity, specifically addressing whether the omission of certain traditional clauses renders it invalid. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the bill sufficient.
Yes, the bill in equity was sufficient. The court held that the confederacy, charging, and jurisdictional clauses are unimportant, and the interrogatory part, coupled with the prayer for process, is adequate.
“The vital and indispensable parts of a bill are the stating part and prayer for relief.”
Establishes the essential components of a bill in equity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants challenged the sufficiency of a bill filed in equity. The bill contained a general interrogatory and a prayer for process, but appellants a…
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 Bill Of Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam
— The tendency of the present day pleading and practice is towards simplicity. The vital and indispensable parts of a bill are the stating part and prayer for relief. 10 R. C. L. 411; Comstock v. Herron, 45 Fed. 661.
Rule 18 Circuit Court Equity Actions expressly renders the confederacy clause, the charging part and the jurisdictional clause unimportant to be alleged. The interrogatory part of the bill has become useless because of the practice of waiving sworn answers and the right to obtain evidence from the defendant by making him a witness at a hearing or procuring his depositions. That the defendant shall answer the bill fully when he is brought into court by subpoena pertains to the very nature and purpose of the bill. Theoretically the court inspects the bill and directs subpoena to be issued. That writ commands the defendant to appear and answer. The bill filed in this case contained in substance a general interrogatory coupled with the prayer for process, which is sufficient to save it from the objection made by appellants, even if the interrogatory part of the bill was important.
Affirmed.
All concur.