SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
WILLIAM A. HARTLINE AND ROSIE C. HARTLINE, FOR THE USE OF M. L. VINCENT, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
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 whether a prior dismissed equity suit barred a subsequent ejectment action. The Florida Supreme Court held that the prior suit did not bar the ejectment action because the plaintiffs were not entitled to the remedy sought in the equity suit, thus no election of remedies occurred.
No, the prior dismissed equity suit does not bar the subsequent ejectment action. There was no election of remedies because the plaintiffs were not entitled to the equitable remedy they sought, and it was denied at the instance of the opposing party.
“As the complainants in the equity suit had invoked a remedy _to which they were not entitled, there was no election of remedies.”
Establishes the core legal principle that an unavailable remedy does not constitute an election.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Hartlines and Vincents previously filed a suit in equity to impress a vendor's lien on land appropriated by the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company …
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 Vendor'S Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
Prior to this action in ejectment a suit in equity was brought against the company by M. L. Vincent, J. H. Vincent, Wm. A. Hartline and Rosie C. Hartline, his wife, to impress a vendor’s lien upon the land that without the owner’s knowledge or consent had been appropriated and was occupied by the railroad company as a right of way.
The Hartlines had conveyed their interest in the land and the Vincents had taken the conveyance with the defendant company in adverse possession of the right of way, therefore, neither the Hartlines nor the Vincents could maintain the suit in equity and the bill of complaint therein was dismissed, on the defendant company’s demurrer. Vincent V. Hines, 79 Fla. 564, 84 South. Rep. 614. As the complainants in the equity suit had invoked a remedy _to which they were not entitled, there was no election of remedies. In order that parties shall be bound by an election of remedies there must be two or more remedies available from which to elect. Where the remedy sought is not permitted and is denied at the instance of the opposing party, there is no election that will bar a proper remedy duly invoked.
See Malsby v. Gamble, 63 Fla. 508, 57 South. Rep. 687.
As to the right to maintain this action see 27 Fla. 443; 25 Fla. 853; 76 Fla. 581; 70 Fla. 245.
Affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gibson v. The Am. Ins. Co., 146 Fla. 171 (Fla. 1941)…f election of remedies does not apply to a case where a party in his first action mistook his remedy. Malsby v. Gamble, 63 Fla. 508, 57 Sou. 687; Bond v. Plewett, 111 Fla. 180, 149 Sou. 606 and cases there cited; S. A. L. Ry Co. v. Hartline, et al., 84 Fla. 133, 92 Sou. 813; Williams v. Robineau, 124 Fla. 422, 168 Sou. 644; McCormick v. Bodeker, 119 Fla. 20, 160 Sou. 483; Northern Assurance Co. v. Grand View Building Association, 203 U. S. 106, 27 Sup. Ct. 27, 51 L. Ed. 109. That an insurance policy may b…
-
Gray v. Durkee, 154 Fla. 407 (Fla. 1944)…authority of Gibson v. American Ins. Co., 146 Fla. 171, 200 So. 357; Goldring v. Reid, 60 Fla. 78, 53 So. 503; Jacques v. Wellington, 133 Fla. 819, 183 So. 22; Spiker v. Hester, 102 Fla. 104, 135 So. 502; Seaboard A. L. Railway Company v. Hartline, 84 Fla. 133, 92 So. 813. BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, CHAPMAN and SEBRING, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Coogler v. Rogers, 25 Fla. 853 (Fla. 1889)
- Vincent v. Walker D. Hines, 79 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1920)
- Gibbs v. McCoy, 70 Fla. 245 (Fla. 1915)
- Jacksonville v. Charles S. Adams de bonis non cum testamento annexo of John S. Adams, 27 Fla. 443 (Fla. 1891)
- Bacon v. Feigel, 76 Fla. 581 (Fla. 1918)
- Malsby v. Gamble, 63 Fla. 508 (Fla. 1912)