ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
L. O. FEAGIN, 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 affirmed a final decree quieting title in favor of the complainant against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. The railroad appealed the trial court's allowance of an amended complaint and the resulting decree pro confesso, arguing the amended bill presented a materially different case from the original.
The trial court properly allowed the amendments and correctly entered the final decree. Both the original and amended bills sought the same relief—to quiet title and restrain trespass—so the amended bill did not constitute an institution of a new and materially different suit with a repugnant cause of action.
“We do not believe that the amended bill is in effect the institution of a new and materially different suit alleging a different cause of action, which is so palpably inconsistent with or repugnant to the original bill that no decree can properly be entered upon the amended bill, for the original and amended bill each sought the same relief.”
Establishes the legal standard that amended pleadings will not be treated as instituting a new suit if they seek the same relief as the original.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case returned to the Circuit Court after a prior appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. An amended bill of complaint was filed and a demurrer there…
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 Decree Pro Confesso cases and more on FLexlaw
Chillingworth, Circuit Judge.
This case was once before this Court. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Feagin, 90 Fla. — , 105 So. 141. Upon its return to the Circuit Court, an amended bill was filed and a demurrer thereto overruled. The defendant, Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. failed to plead. A decree pro confesso and final decree were entered. The title of complainant was quieted, and the defendant enjoined and restrained from asserting or claiming any title to the land involved, except for a right-of-way easement.
The appellant, defendant in the Court below, contends that the Court erred in granting leave to file the amended bill and an amendment thereto, and in entering the final decree based upon an unsworn amended bill of complaint which presented an inconsistent and materially different case from the one made out in the original bill.
The original bill and the amended bill each apparently sought to quiet the title of complainant as well as to restrain a trespess. The amended bill, as a bill to restrain a trespass, is still without equity, for the reason pointed out by this Court in its previous opinion.
While there is surplusage in the amended bill, it contains the essential elements of a bill to quiet title, which the defendant has admitted by the entry of a decree pro confesso.
We do not believe that the amended bill is in effect the institution of a new and materially different suit alleging a different cause of action, which is so palpably inconsistent with or repugnant to the original bill that no decree can properly be entered upon the amended bill, for the original and amended bill each sought the same relief. Guggenheimer & Co. v. Davidson, 62 Fla. 490, 56 So. 801.
While it may be proper, it is not always necessary for the Court to require additional proof to be presented after the entry of the decree pro confesso, and before the entry of a final decree, as the defendant is held to have admitted the allegations of fact, and the fair inferences and conclusions of fact which may be drawn from the allegations contained in the bill of complaint. Lybass v. Town of Fort Myers, 56 Fla. 817, 47 So. 346.
Necessarily, the trial court is clothed with broad discretion in the matter of allowing amendments to the pleading? in civil causes, and unless there is a gross abuse of the dis cretion this Court will not interfere with its exercise. Warren v. Warren, 73 Fla. 764, 75 So. 35.
We do not believe the rights of the defendant were prejudiced in any way by permitting the amendments. The defendant had an opportunity to present its defense of law and of fact, and failed to do so.
Affirmed.
Per Curiam. — The record in this cause having been considered by this Court, and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chapter 7837, Acts of 1919, adopted by the Court as its opinion, it is considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the decree of the Circuit Court should be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bennett v. Senn, 106 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1932)…fendants, and by reason thereof, they are held to have admitted the allegations of fact and the inferences, and conclusions of fact which may be drawn from the allegations contained in the bill of complaint. A. C. L. R. Co. vs. Feagin, 93 Fla. 1015, 113 So. 89. Since the promise of the defendants, Julia Dillon Bennett and Rosa Dillon, was contained in a covenant o'f the mortgage, which was made a part of the -bill, and the consideration therefor was the granting of an extension of time for the payment of…
-
Wackenhut Protective Sys., Inc. v. KEY Biscayne Commodore Club Condo. I, Inc., 350 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…n for leave to amend. Florida case law applies a test of prejudice to the defendant as the primary consideration in determining whether the plaintiff’s motion to amend should be granted or denied. See Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Feagin, 93 Fla. 1015, 113 So. 89 (1927); Carroll v. Gore, 106 Fla. 582, 143 So. 633 (1932); and Penn Cork & Closures, Inc. v. Piggyback Shippers Assoc, of Florida, Inc., 281 So. 2d 46 (Fla.3d DCA 1973). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, from which Florida patt…
-
McCullough v. McCullough, 156 Fla. 321 (Fla. 1945)…hat the allegations of the amendment were not so palpably inconsistent with those of the original bill as to indicate abuse of discretion on the part of the chancellor in allowing the amendment was Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Feagin, 93 Fla. 1015, 113 So. 89. The last paragraph of this decision, however, contains a statement apropos the underlying principle by which the merits of amendments áre gauged. The court said: “We do not believe the rights of the defendant were prejudiced in any way by. permitti…
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
- Warren v. Warren, 73 Fla. 764 (Fla. 1917)
- Simon v. Simon, 73 Fla. 919 (Fla. 1917)
- Guggenheimer & Co. v. Davidson, 62 Fla. 490 (Fla. 1911)
- Lybass v. The Town of Fort Myers, 56 Fla. 817 (Fla. 1908)