H. CLAY ABNEY, JR., MARY CARUTHERS NICHOLS, A MARRIED WOMAN JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, G. R. NICHOLS, AND G. R. NICHOLS IN HIS OWN RIGHT, APPELLANTS,
v.
F. T. HURNER, 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 decree in an equity action where the complainants sought to enjoin disposition of land, void a deed, cancel an exchange deed, and cancel notes and mortgages. The court rejected the complainants' arguments regarding procedural defects and affirmed the lower court's decision.
The court affirmed the decree, holding that the motion to dismiss was properly denied because the defendant had acquired a substantial right in the cause and would have been prejudiced by dismissal, and the denial of the motion to extend the time for taking testimony was within the chancellor's discretion with no showing of abuse.
“The answer most certainly denies every material allegation of the bill, and also incorporates a counter claim, as is admitted by complainant's brief.”
Establishes that the defendant's answer properly put the cause at issue by denying material allegations and asserting a counterclaim
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe complainants filed a bill in equity against the defendant seeking to enjoin him from disposing of certain described lands, to void a deed conveyin…
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 Cancellation Of Mortgage cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having beén seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered, and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., Buford, J., and Long, Circuit Judge, concur. Opinion filed April 24, 1929.
Long (Circuit Judge) :
The bill in this cause prays that the defendant be enjoined from disposing of certain described lands; that the deed conveying said lands to defendant be decreed to be void; that the deed executed by defendant to lands exchanged for lands mentioned and described in complainant’s deed be canceled; and that certain notes and mortgages executed by complainants be also canceled. On May 2, 1927 the defendant filed his answer admitting the execution of the instruments but denying in detail and specifically the several allegations of the bill. The court appointed a master to take testimony and fixed the time for the taking of such testimony at 60 days, subsequently extending such time until October 31, 1927. No testimony was taken and the cause was set down for final hearing on the bill and answer. The time for taking testimony was fixed on the suggestion of complainant and the court subsequently indulged the complainant further by the extension of such time.
The answer most certainly denies every material allegation of the bill, and also incorporates a counter claim, as is admitted by complainant’s brief.
If it was necessary to file an answer to paragraph fifteen of the bill alleging this counter claim in.order that the cause should have been at issue, then the complainants who had several months in which to avail themselves of this rule, should not, upon the final hearing, be heard to complain; nor can they complain of the negligence of their counsel which the law visits upon them.
The motion to dismiss was properly denied because the defendant had acquired, as appears from the answer, a substantial right in the cause and would have been seriously prejudiced by a dismissal.
The denial of the motion to extend the time for taking testimony was within the discretion of the chancellor, and as there does not appear to be an abuse of such discretion the petition for rehearing is denied.
Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1992)…s violation of professional ethics. In effect, the voice of the attorney is the voice of the client. Griffith v. Investment Co., 92 Fla. 781, 110 So. 271 (1926); Small v. Colonial Investment Co., 92 Fla. 503, 109 So. 433 (1926); see Abney v. Hurner, 97 Fla. 240, 121 So. 883 (1929); State ex rel. Gutierrez v. Baker, 276 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1973) (acts of attorney are binding on client). Other jurisdictions are in general agreement with this principle.57 E.g., United States v. DiMucci, 879 F. 2d 1488, 1496 (7th…
-
Pino v. The Bank OF NEW York, 121 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 2013)…e Court during the first half of the twentieth century. See Shaw v. Morrison, 145 Fla. 443, 199 So. 566, 567 (1941); Willson v. Buxton, 110 Fla. 286, 149 So. 329, 330-31 (1933); Demos v. Walker, 99 Fla. 302, 126 So. 305, 306 (1930); Abney v. Hurner, 97 Fla. 240, 121 So. 883, 884 (1929); Smith v. Milham, 94 Fla. 1159, 115 So. 532, 533 (1927); Sontag Inv. Co. oflnd. v. Nautilus Realty Co., 78 Fla. 529, 83 So. 389, 390 (1919); Mayfield v. Wernicke Chem. Co., 65 Fla. 113, 61 So. 191, 193 (1913); Tilghman Cypre…
-
Hancock v. Maude Lane Hancock, 128 Fla. 684 (Fla. 1937)…y proceeding as if it were on file. Keator Lumber Co. v. Thompson, 144 U. S. 434, 12 Sup. Ct. 669, 36 L. Ed. 495; Viser v. Willard, 60 Fla. 395, 53 Sou. 501; Crump v. Perkins, 18 Fla. 353; June v. Myers, 12 Fla. 310. In the case of Obner v. Hurner, 97 Fla. 240, 121 Sou. 883, there was a bill of complaint and answer which included a counter-claim. Time for taking testimony was fixed on suggestion of complainant, and the court further indulged complainant by extending the time in which to [*692] take testim…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence