CARL H. DITTMAR, APPELLANT,
v.
WOODS-HOSKINS-YOUNG COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Dittmar appealed the trial court's order overruling his general and special demurrers to an amended bill of complaint seeking specific performance of real estate purchase contracts. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the bill stated sufficient grounds for equitable relief and that the demurrers were properly overruled.
The court affirmed the trial court's order overruling both demurrers. A general demurrer must be overruled if the bill contains any equity, and the bill of complaint in this case clearly states grounds for equitable relief under established precedent.
“Where several assignments of error are grouped in the brief of plaintiff in error and one assignment fails, they all fail”
Rule applied by the court when multiple assignments of error are grouped in appellant's brief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDittmar and Woods-Hoskins-Young Company had four contracts for the purchase and sale of certain parcels of real estate. Dittmar filed an amended bill …
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 Bill Of Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
Buford, J.
Amended bill of complaint was filed to enforce specific performance of four certain contracts existing between the parties for purchase and sale of certain parcels of real estate. A special demurrer was filed to the amended bill and a general demurrer was filed to the amended bill. An order was made overruling both the general and special demurrers. From this order appeal was táken.
The appellant assigned two errors. The order of the court overruling the special demurrer and the order of court overruling the general demurrer. In his brief, the appellant has grouped his two assignments of error. Therefore, the rule as stated in A. C. L. Ry. v. Whitney, 65 Fla. 72, 61 So. R. 179, .“Where several assignments of error are grouped in the brief of plaintiff in error and one assignment fails, they all fail,” applies,
Aside from the application of this rule, we may say that the inspection of the record discloses that the so-called special demurrer is in fact a general demurrer, because it goes to the entire bill of complaint, and, therefore, as a special demurrer it should have been overruled.
The general demurrer must be taken to have admitted the truth of all the facts well pleaded in the bill, and it is a rule, which has been too often stated by this Court to require the citation of authorities, that a general demurrer to a bill of complaint must be overruled if the bill contains any equity.
The bill of complaint in this case clearly states grounds for equitable relief as prayed under authority of the opinions in the cases of Realty Securities Corporation v. Johnson, 93 Fla. 46, 111 So. R. 532; Booth et al. v. Bobbitt, 94 Fla. 704, 114 So. R. 513, and cases there cited. Therefore, the order appealed from should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum, J., concur. Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Century Tr. Co. of Baltimore v. The Allison Realty Co., 105 Fla. 456 (Fla. 1932)…e vs. B. A. I. Ass’n., 88 Fla. 553, 102 So. 768; Reinschmidt vs. L. & N. R. Co., 90 Fla. 334, 106 So. 126; Prest vs. Hammock, 92 Fla. 941, 111 So. 112; Oakland Properties Corp. vs. Hogan, 96 Fla. 52, 118 So. 850; Dittmar vs. Woods-Hoskins-Young Co., 98 Fla. 513; 123 So. 919; Clapp vs. Coral Gables Corporation, 98 Fla. 1230, 125 So. 369; Stokes vs. Victory Land Co., 99 Fla. 795, 128 So. 408; Orange Belt Land Exchange vs. Spear, 100 Fla. 182, 129 So. 779. This Court has also held that multifariousness is gr…
Authorities Cited
- Realty Sec. Corp. v. Johnson, 93 Fla. 46 (Fla. 1927)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Whitney, 65 Fla. 72 (Fla. 1913)
- Gertrude S. Booth v. Bobbitt, 94 Fla. 704 (Fla. 1927)