A. L. SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
H. F. POWELL AND J. T. MAPOLES, 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.
Smith sought equity relief (injunction and specific performance) after Powell failed to convey land due to lack of title, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal on the ground that Smith had an adequate legal remedy and therefore lacked standing for equitable relief.
Yes. The trial court properly sustained demurrers and dismissed the bill because Smith had an adequate remedy at law, depriving the equity court of jurisdiction to hear the case.
“It is apparent from the allegations of the bill that there was, at the time of the institution of the suit, an adequate remedy at law. This being true, there was no jurisdiction in a court of equity to hear and determine the cause.”
Establishes the controlling principle that equity jurisdiction requires unavailability of adequate legal remedies.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith and Powell entered a contract on January 5, 1916, for Smith to purchase described land. Smith took possession, erected a building, and operated …
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 Ejectment cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
By Ms second amended bill in equity appellant, as complainant below, in substance alleged the making of a contract with appellee Rowell on the 5th day of January, A. D. 1916, to purchase certain described land; appellant’s entry into the possession of such land pursuant to the terms of the contract; the erection by him of a building thereon and the establishment of a business which he conducted in such building; his discovery thereafter that appellee did not own the land afe represented at the time the contract was niade and appellee’s consequent inability to make a valid conveyance thereof to appellant; appellant’s ability and willingness to perform the contract but failure to do so because of appellees’ inability; the recovery by appellee of a verdict and judgment in a suit in ejectment against appellant for the possession of the property, and that such verdict and judgment were for various stated reasons void and unenforcable.
The prayer is for an injunction against the enforcement of the judgment and for specific performance of. the contract. ''
The contract, which is made a part of the bill, contained a provision that appellant should remain in possession of the property during-the time that he kept the terms of the contract; it provided for the payment of the consideration for said property in two equal installments, one payable thirty days after date and the other one year after date made the time of payment of the essence of the contract; and provided further that in default of the payment of either of the installments when due the right of the appellant to possession of the property or the improvements that he had placed thereon should terminate. The judgment in ejectment was recovered on the 5th day of January, A. D. 1918, and the original bill was filed on the 15th day of February, A. D. 1918.
There was a demurrer to the bill upon the ground, among others, that it contained no equity. Upon a hearing this demurrer was sustained. Demurrers were also sustained to the original and the first amended bill. The appeal is from the several orders sustaining demurrers to the several bills and from an order dissolving a temporary injunction which had been granted in said causé and dismissing the bill.
There was no error in any of the orders appealed from. It is apparent from the allegations of the bill that there was, at the time of the institution of the suit, an adequate remedy at law. This being true, there was no jurisdiction in a court of equity to hear and determine the cause. The court below therefore properly sustained the several demurrers to the several bills and properly dissolved the temporary restraining order and dismissed the bill for the same reason. Barnett v. Hickson, 52 Fla. 457, 41 South. Rep. 606; Peacock et al. v. Feaster et al., 52 Fla. 565, 42 South. Rep. 889; Metcalf Co. v. Martin, 54 Fla. 531, 45 South. Rep. 463; Simmons v. Williford, 60 Fla. 359, 53 South. Rep. 452; McCall v. Matheson, 66 Fla. 157, 63 South. Rep. 701.
The orders appealed from are affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitpifld and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677 (Fla. 1926)…a. 158, 161; Finnegan v. Fernandina, 15 Fla. 379; Metcalf Co. v. Martin, 54 Fla. 531, 45 So. 463; Simmons v. Williford, 60 Fla. 359, 53 So. 452; Johnson v. McKinnon, 54 Fla. 221, 45 So. 23; Edmonds v. Gracy, 61 Fla. 593, 54 So. 899; Smith v. Powell, 80 Fla. 166, 85 So. 654; Tampa & Gulf Coast R. Co. v. Mulhern, 73 Fla. 146, 74 So. 297. It necessarily follows that the decree of the court giving a deficiency judgment against the defendant for a large amount and an attorney’s fee of $1000.00 was also void, b…1 / 2
-
Masser v. The London Operating Co., 106 Fla. 474 (Fla. 1932)…n complainant has a full, adequate and complete remedy at law. McClelland vs. Marion Holding Co., 103 Fla. 646, 137 So. 887; First Nat'l Bank vs. Mackenzie, 100 Fla. 1674, 131 So. 790. Williams vs. Dorman, 99 Fla. 496, 126 So. 117; Smith vs. Powell, 80 Fla. 166, 75 So. 654; Simmons vs. Williford, 60 Fla. 359, 53 So. 452, Ann. Cas. 1912 C. 735. It is generally held that, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, a court of equity has jurisdiction to [*496] enjoin dispossessory proceedings instituted by…
-
Williams v. Dormany, 99 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1930)…Fla. 200, 69 So. R. 720. Then, too, an injunction should not be granted where the remedy at law is adequate. Simmons v. Williford, 60 Fla. 359, 53 So. R. 452; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Railroad Commissioners, 63 Fla. 491, 58 So. R. 543; Smith v. Powell, 80 Fla. 166, 85 So. R. 654; Bass v. Alderman, 80 Fla. 345, 86 So. R. 244. In Morgan v. The City of Lakeland, 90 Fla. 525, 107 So. R. 269, it was alleged in the bill of complaint that the City of Lakeland impounded, under its ordinance, on the average of about…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Peacock v. Feaster, 52 Fla. 565 (Fla. 1906)
- Simmons v. Williford, 60 Fla. 359 (Fla. 1910)
- Bion H. Barnett v. Hickson, 52 Fla. 457 (Fla. 1906)
- H. W. Metcalf Co. v. Martin, 54 Fla. 531 (Fla. 1907)
- McCall v. Matheson, 66 Fla. 157 (Fla. 1913)