L. E. LIEBMANN, APPELLANT,
v.
ADA JOHNSON, ET AL., 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision in a quiet title action, upholding the chancellor's ruling on a demurrer that was considered alongside the merits of the case after testimony was taken.
The court held that the chancellor's ruling on the demurrer, considered in conjunction with the merits after testimony, was not erroneous and should be sustained.
“In this case bill was filed prior to the enactment of Chapter No. 11383, Laws of Fla., approved Nov. 30, 1925. The relief sought was the quieting of title to two separate parcels of land.”
Describes the nature and timing of the lawsuit.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA bill was filed to quiet title to two parcels of land. The appellant, responding to notice by publication, filed an answer denying the bill's allegat…
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 Quieting Title cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In this case bill was filed prior to the enactment of Chapter No. 11383, Laws of Fla., approved Nov. 30, 1925. The relief sought was the quieting of title to two separate parcels of land. The appellant responded to notice by publication directed to unknown defendants and filed his answer, in which he denied all allegations of the bill, except those to which he alleged he was without knowledge and of those allegations demanded proof. In his answer he incorporated a demurrer. In due course a-Master was appointed, testimony taken and the case was presented to the Chancellor for final disposition, at which time the dumurrer above mentioned was considered by the Chancellor. The salient ground of objection to the bill raised by the dumurrer was that it was multifarious.
If the appellant had filed a demurrer to the bill and, standing upon that, had brought the same on for hearing, it may be that the Chancellor’s ruling on the demurrer would not have been as it was when it came on for hearing together with the merits of the cause áfter testimony had been taken. [...]
It appears to us that the order of the Chancellor should be sustained upon authority of the opinion in the case of Farrall v. Forest Investment Company, 73 Fla. 191, 74 Sou. 216, and it is so ordered. What is here said is not in conflict with the rule laid down in McRainey v. Jarrell 59 Fla. 587, 52 Sou. 304; Terra Ceia Estates v. Taylor, 68 Fla. 261, 67 So. 169.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, and Buford J. J., concur. Elias, C. J., and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Farrell v. Forest Inv. Co., 73 Fla. 191 (Fla. 1917)
- Terra Ceia Ests. v. Nannie E. Taylor, 68 Fla. 261 (Fla. 1914)
- McRainey v. Jarrell, 59 Fla. 587 (Fla. 1910)