MAMIE W. CRANDALL, A WIDOW, AND R. P. CLARK, APPELLANTS,
v.
ELIZABETH T. OWEN, 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 a lower court's order overruling a demurrer, finding that the bill of complaint was multifarious. The court held that the bill improperly joined two separate and independent transactions with different parties and subject matter.
Yes, the bill of complaint was multifarious. It improperly combined two distinct and unrelated transactions involving different parties and subject matter.
“The sole question raised by the demurrer is that the bill is multifarious.”
Identifies the central legal issue on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants (defendants) appealed an order from the lower court that overruled their demurrer to a bill of complaint filed by appellee (complainant). T…
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 Suit For Accounting cases and more on FLexlaw
Terrell, C. J.
The bill of complaint herein prays that a trust be decreed on certain lands in. Dade County, more specifically therein described and that an accounting be had between appellee as complainant below and appellants as defendants below. A demurrer to the bill was overruled and appeal was taken from that order. The sole question raised by the demurrer is that the bill is multifarious. •
We think the bill was amenable to the assault made on it. It is shown that it involved two separate and independent transactions in which the parties were in part different and in which the subject matter was entirely different. This court has frequently expressed itself on the question of multifariousness. We do not see that further discussion of that subject would serve any useful purpose. Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 So. R. 31; Farrell v. Forest Investment Co., 73 Fla. 191, 74 So. R. 216; Craft v. Craft, 74 Fla. 262, 76 So. R. 772; Arcadia Mercantile Co. v. Branning, 59 Fla. 428, 52 So. R. 588.
The decree below is therefore reversed.
Reversed.
Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yates v. Peninsular Sec. Corp., 107 Fla. 802 (Fla. 1932)…ation, and was therefore subject to a demurrer. Meloche v. Meloche, 101 Fla. 659, 133 Sou. Rep. 339; Trust Company of Florida v. Crider, 102 Fla. 593, 136 Sou. Rep. 434; Ratliff v. Nowery, 102 Fla. 1072, 136 Sou. Rep. 895. See also Crandall v. Owen, 97 Fla. 198, 120 Sou. Rep. 319; and Mountein v. King, 75 Fla. 12, 77 Sou. Rep. 630. In this case the basic and fundamental equitable cause of action stated, is the claim that the four second mortgage bondholders are entitled to have the defendants, Almours Sec…
-
Edason v. Cent. Farmers' Tr. Co., 100 Fla. 348 (Fla. 1930)…rt different from necessary parties complainant to the accounting, and that the foreclosure and the accounting involve two separate and independent transactions in which the subject matter is entirely different, it is multifarious. Crandall v. Owen, 97 Fla. 198, 120 So. R. 319. Defendants contend that Charles Edason is not entitled to foreclose because the bill shows, upon its face that the lands covered by the mortgage were conveyed to him at the time the previous suit for foreclosure was dismissed witho…
Authorities Cited
- Farrell v. Forest Inv. Co., 73 Fla. 191 (Fla. 1917)
- Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480 (Fla. 1909)
- Craft v. Craft, 74 Fla. 262 (Fla. 1917)
- The Arcadia Mercantile Co. v. Alpha Branning and Ella Branning, 59 Fla. 428 (Fla. 1910)