FLORIDA CENTRAL AND GULF RAILWAY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
W. H. BOSWELL, 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 lower court's decision to dismiss a bill of complaint. The court held that while a plaintiff generally has the right to dismiss their suit, this right is not absolute and can be subject to exceptions, particularly when the suit is an attempt to test the validity of a tax deed.
No, a plaintiff's right to dismiss a bill of complaint is not absolute and is subject to exceptions. The court affirmed the dismissal, implying that this case fell under an exception or that the dismissal was not an abuse of discretion.
“This Court is committed to the doctrine that the plaintiff in an equity suit has the right at any time before decree or final hearing upon payment of costs to dismiss his bill without prejudice.”
The court's acknowledgment of the general rule regarding dismissal of suits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, a corporation, was the defendant in a suit to quiet title that was predicated on a tax deed. The lower court dismissed the bill of comp…
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 To Quiet Title cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This appeal is from a final decree dismissing the bill of complaint as to appellant, defendant below, without prejudice. This Court is committed to the doctrine that the plaintiff in an equity suit has the right at any time before decree or final hearing upon payment of costs to dismiss his bill without prejudice. This rule, however, like most others has its well recognized exceptions, but in the case at bar it is not fully made to appear that in dismissing the bill the chancellor abused his discretion.
The record further discloses that this was a suit to quiet title predicated on a tax deed. A bill in equity cannot be maintained for the sole purpose of testing the validity of a tax deed. Stuart v. Stephanus et al., 94 Fla. 1087, 114, So. R. 767. Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
St. Clair Davant v. City of Brooksville, 130 Fla. 229 (Fla. 1937)…an Cypress Company v. Young, 53 So. 939, 60 Fla. 382; Veillard v. St. Petersburg, 100 So. 163, 87 Fla. 381; Marshall v. Krantz, 113 So. 110, 93 Fla. 730; Smith v. Milham, 115 So. 532, 94 Fla. 1159; Florida Cent. & G. Railway v. Boswell, 123 So. 567, 98 Fla. 117. While in,the instant case the Court might well have dismissed the cause with prejudice, of could have permitted it to proceed to a final determination upon the merits, we are not of the opinion that the dismissal.without prejudice was an abuse of…
Authorities Cited
- Stuart v. Stephanus, 94 Fla. 1087 (Fla. 1927)