HANNAH S. WHILLDIN, FRANCIS E. GREENE AND CARRIE B. BRIGGS, APPELLANTS,
v.
HUBERT F. KRANTZ, 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 Florida Supreme Court reversed an order denying a rehearing on a final decree, finding that the bill of review was insufficient. The court held that the bill of review failed to state grounds for relief and should have been dismissed.
No, the bill of review did not sufficiently state grounds for rehearing. It failed to present any apparent error or new matter entitling the complainant to relief and should have been dismissed.
“The bill of review does not set out all of the record upon which it is predicated, viz, it does not state a demurrer that was overruled, or the answer of a defendant who was dismissed from the suit or the decree pro confesso entered against another defendant ivho is the complainant below herein, or the-order dismissing one defendant from the suit and continuing the suit as to another defendant, complainant here.”
This quote explains the factual deficiencies in the bill of review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants sought a rehearing on a final decree through a bill of review. The bill of review did not include all relevant record information, such…
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 Answer cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This appeal is from an order denying a motion and petition for a rehearing on a final decree upon a bill of review.
The bill of review does not set out all of the record upon which it is predicated, viz, it does not state a demurrer that was overruled, or the answer of a defendant who was dismissed from the suit or the decree pro confesso entered against another defendant ivho is the complainant below herein, or the-order dismissing one defendant from the suit and continuing the suit as to another defendant, complainant here. See 3 Ency. Pl. & Pr., 574 et seq.; 21 C. J. 740 et seq.
The bill of review does not state that the final decree sought to be set aside has been performed.
No error apparent is shown by the bill of review, and no new matter is set up that in equity entitles the complainant to the relief sought. The bill of review should have been dismissed. See Whilldin v. Green, this day filed.
Reversed.
Whitfield, P. J., and West and Terrell, J. J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur in the opinion.
On Rehearing.
Per Curiam.
Upon consideration of a petition for rehearing filed herein, it appears that, in view of the confused and irregular state of the pleadings and the proceedings had thereon, it is just and equitable that the reversal of the decree appealed from should be without prejudice to further proceedings that may be appropriate to duly present the equities of the case.
It is therefore ordered and decreed that the order heretofore made by this court, reversing the decree appealed from, and directing the bill of review be dismissed, be and the same is hereby modified, so that the order appealed from shall be and is hereby reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings in due course of law.
Reversal modified. Rehearing denied.
Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Browne and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adams v. Fielding, 148 Fla. 552 (Fla. 1941)…cree attacked are not embraced within or made a part of the bill of complaint as exhibits thereto. Unless this is done, the court cannot be required to review its former decree.” This case is consistent with the previous case of Whilldin v. Krantz, 89 Fla. 33, 103 Sou. 193, which held to the same effect, although the language used there was more general. In view, however, of what will be hereinafter said, we shall not recede from what we have held in this regard, supra, and hold the allegations of the bi…