MINNIE VEILLARD AND HUSBAND, RALPH VEILLARD, S. T. WORTHEN AND WIFE, MARY P. WORTHEN, JENNIE R. DURANT AND HUSBAND, CHRALES DURANT, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG OF PINELLAS COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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.
The City of St. Petersburg sought to foreclose a paving certificate lien against abutting property owned by the Veillards, Worthens, and Durants. The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice, and defendants appealed contending the dismissal should have been with prejudice on the merits. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a chancellor has discretion to dismiss equity complaints without prejudice absent a clear abuse of discretion.
The court affirmed the dismissal without prejudice, holding that it is within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor to dismiss equity complaints without prejudice, and an appellate court will not find such a ruling to be error unless it clearly appears that the discretion has been abused to the material detriment of the affected party.
“It is within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor to dismiss without prejudice a bill of complaint in equity, thereby enabling the complainant to re-litigate the matter in controversy, and an Appellate Court will not adjudge such ruling to be error, unless it is made clearly to appear that the judicial discretion thereby exercised has been abused to the material detriment of the party affected by the ruling.”
Establishes the standard of review for dismissals without prejudice and the chancellor's discretion in equity matters.
The City of St. Petersburg filed suit to foreclose a paving certificate lien against property owned by the defendants. Defendants filed a plea to the …
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 Dismissal Without Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
This is a suit by the City of St. Petersburg against Minnie Veillard and others to foreclose a paving certificate lien against certain abutting property described in the certificate, a certified copy of which is made a part of the bill of complaint. The amended bill of complaint was demurred to. Upon a hearing the demurrer was overruled. On August 7, 1922, defendants filed a plea to the bill of complaint. On October 2, 1922, defendants filed their praecipe asking for a dismissal of the bill, of complaint on the ground that complainant having failed to reply or set down the plea for argument is deemed to have admitted its sufficiency and defendants were entitled to a dismissal pursuant to the provisions of rules 4 and 55 of Rules of Circuit Courts in Equity. On October 21, 1922, defendants filed their replication to the plea. On November 3, 1922, there was a motion by defendants to strike from the files this replication. Upon a hearing the motion to dismiss was granted. The dismissal was “without prejudice.” Defendants appeal and assign as error this order. It is defendant’s contention that for the reasons stated in the motion, they were entitled to an order of dismissal on the merits and that the order dismissing the suit “without prejudice” is error. This is the only question presented.
“It is within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor to dismiss without prejudice a bill of complaint in equity, thereby enabling the complainant to re-litigate the matter in controversy, and an Appellate Court will not adjudge 'Such ruling to be error, unless it is made clearly to appear that the judicial discretion thereby exercised has been abused to the material detriment of the party affected by the ruling.” Tilghman Cypress Co. v. Young Co., 60 Fla. 382, 53 South. Rep. 939; Meffert v. Thomas, 51 Fla. 492, 40 South. Rep. 764.
There is nothing in the record in this case requiring a holding that the order of dismissal without prejudice was an abuse of judicial discretion by the trial court. Upon authority of the two cases cited the order appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur, in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Masser v. The London Operating Co., 106 Fla. 474 (Fla. 1932)…unless it is made clearly to appear that the judicial discretion thereby exercised has been abused to the material detriment of the party affected by the ruling.” Phillips vs. Lindsay, 102 Fla. 935, 136 So. 666; Veillard vs. City of St. Petersburg, 87 Fla. 381, 100 So. 163; Tilgham Cypress Co. vs. Young Co., 60 Fla. 382, 53 So. 939; Meffert vs. Thomas, 51 Fla. 492, 40 So. 764. While every dismissal upon a' final hearing is not necessarily an adjudication on the merits, yet the rule is that where the caus…
-
St. Clair Davant v. City of Brooksville, 130 Fla. 229 (Fla. 1937)…[*231] dice, or without prejudice, is, subject to certain well established principles of the law, within the sound judicial discretion of the Court. Tilghan Cypress Company v. Young, 53 So. 939, 60 Fla. 382; Veillard v. St. Petersburg, 100 So. 163, 87 Fla. 381; Marshall v. Krantz, 113 So. 110, 93 Fla. 730; Smith v. Milham, 115 So. 532, 94 Fla. 1159; Florida Cent. & G. Railway v. Boswell, 123 So. 567, 98 Fla. 117. While in,the instant case the Court might well have dismissed the cause with prejudice, of c…
Authorities Cited
- Tilghman Cypress Co. v. John R. Young Co., 60 Fla. 382 (Fla. 1910)
- Meffert v. Withered B. Thomas, 51 Fla. 492 (Fla. 1906)