L. C. GRACY, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS W. FIELDING, 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 involves an appeal from two interlocutory orders concerning an injunction to restrain a trespass. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decisions, finding no error in denying a motion to strike an interlineation and no abuse of discretion in granting a temporary injunction.
The lower court did not err in denying the motion to strike the interlineation, and the granting of the temporary injunction was within the court's discretion and not an abuse thereof.
“The denial of the motion to strike the alleged interlineation from the prayer of the bill, we cannot say was error, as the issue was distinctly drawn by the solicitors for complainant and defendant on the question of fact, as to whether any alteration or interlineation had been made in the bill after it was filed and the court decided that question in favor of complainant.”
Explains why the denial of the motion to strike was not considered error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant appealed two orders: one denying a motion to strike an interlineation in the prayer of an amended bill for an injunction, and another gr…
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 Prayer For Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Ellis, J.
This is an appeal from two interlocutory orders. One denying a motion to strike an interlineation in the prayer of the amended bill for an injunction to restrain a trespass. The interlineation consisting of the words “a temporary” inserted before the word injunction in the prayer after running a pen through the word “an” immediately preceding the word “injunction.” The other .order was one granting a temporary injunction against the defendant, L. C. Gracy, “as prayed for by the amended bill.” The prayer was that an “injunction issue against L. C. Gracy, restraining him, his agents, servants and employees from going upon the lands described in the bill and from cutting the trees thereon and from removing the losrs therefrom,” etc. The bill alleged that the lands were wild, -unimproved and unoccupied, and contained the allegation that the defendant Gracy was cutting trees or removing logs from the land and removing wood therefrom and otherwise committing waste upon the property.
The denial of the motion to strike the alleged interlineation from the prayer of the bill, we cannot say was error, as the issue was distinctly drawn by the solicitors for complainant and defendant on the question of fact, as to whether any alteration or interlineation had been made in the bill after it was filed and the court decided that question in favor of complainant. The granting of the injunction was a matter within the court’s discretion, within limitations of reasonable exercise. The allegations of the bill were sufficient upon which to rest the prayer for such relief, and the affidavits offered in support of the application sufficient. See Holt v. Hillman-Sutherland Co. 56 Fla. 801, 47 South. Rep. 934; Allen v. Hawley, 6 Fla. 142; McKenne v. Dickenson, 24 Fla. 366, 5 South. Rep. 34; Savage v. Parker, 53 Fla. 1002, 43 South. Rep. 507; Viser v. Willard, 60 Fla. 395, 53 South. Rep. 501.
No abuse of discretion has been shown by the Chancellor in granting the injunction so the orders are affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield ane West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Willis v. Hathaway, 95 Fla. 608 (Fla. 1928)…chancellor in such cases. Building Supply Co. v. Acton, 56 Fla. 756, 47 Sou. 822; Holt v. Hillman Southerland Co., 56 Fla. 801, 47 Sou. 934; Vosen v. Willard, 60 Fla. 395, 53 Sou. 501; Pensacola v. Bear, 83 Fla. 484, 91 Sou. 360; Gracy v. Fielding, 83 Fla. 386, 91 Sou. 373; Farmers Bank & Trust Co. v. Palms Pub. Co., 86 Fla. 371, 98 Sou. 143; Nelson v. State, 84 Fla. 631, 94 Sou. 680. As heretofore stated, the order appealed from was made on presentation of bill and answers and evidence produced in the f…
-
Farmers Bank & Tr. Co. v. Palms Publ'g Co., 86 Fla. 371 (Fla. 1923)…nce may be offered and considered which will affect the result. Upon the record now before the court, it does not appear that there was an abuse of judicial discretion in granting the temporary restraiinng order now under review. Gracy v. Fielding, 83 Fla. 386, 91 South. Rep. 373; Viser v. Willard, 60 Fla. 395, 53 South. Rep. 501; Holt v. Hillman-Sutherland Co., 56 Fla. 801, 47 South. Rep. 934; Savage v. Parker, 53 Fla. 1002, 43 South. Rep. 507; McKenne v. Dickenson, 24 Fla. 366, 5 South. Rep. 34; Allen v…
-
Nelson v. State, 84 Fla. 631 (Fla. 1922)…rt, and upon appeal an order granting or denying such injunction will not be disturbed unless contrary to some rule of equity or the result of improvident exercise of judicial discretion. Meccano, Ltd. v. Wanamaker, 253 U. S. 136; Gracy v. Fielding, 83 Fla. 386, 91 South. Rep. 373. The injunction is limited in its application to the defendant. It is not against the property. The evidence was ample to support the finding that, under the guise of an apparently legitimate business, the premises described wer…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Viser v. Willard, 60 Fla. 395 (Fla. 1910)
- Savage v. Parker, 53 Fla. 1002 (Fla. 1907)
- Allen v. Hawley, 6 Fla. 142 (Fla. 1855)
- McKinne v. Dickenson, 24 Fla. 366 (Fla. 1888)
- E. N. Holt as Tax Collector of Clay Cnty. v. Hillman-Sutherland Co., 56 Fla. 801 (Fla. 1908)