JOHN H. MEIER AND MAX GRIFFING MEIER, APPELLANTS,
v.
A. JOHNSTON, AS GRAND CHIEF ENGINEER OF THE GRAND INTERNATIONAL DIVISION OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 an interlocutory order denying a motion to strike a defective parties objection in a mortgage foreclosure suit brought by representatives of an unincorporated labor union. The court held that under the 1931 Chancery Act, representatives of a numerous unincorporated association may sue on behalf of all members without joining all parties.
The court held that under Section 14 of the 1931 Chancery Act, when a question is of common interest to many persons constituting a class so numerous as to make it impractical to bring all before the court, one or more may sue for the whole. Therefore, the representatives properly brought suit on behalf of the Brotherhood, and the trial court correctly struck the parties objection.
“When the question is one of common or general interest to many persons constituting a class so numerous as to make it impractical to bring them all before the Court, one or more may sue or defend for the whole.”
Section 14 of the 1931 Chancery Act, which provides the statutory basis for allowing representative actions by unincorporated associations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, an unincorporated association with numerous members, brought a foreclosure action on a mortgage through repre…
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 Class Action Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
Upon motion to dismiss the appeal herein as frivolous, the Court is of the opinion that the motion to dismiss should be denied, but that the interlocutory order appealed from should be affirmed on the authority of Grand Lodge, etc., v. Stroud, 107 Fla. 152, 144 Sou. Rep. 324, wherein this Court held that where the Supreme Court, in determining motions to quash proceedings in error as frivolous, examines transcript and finds no reversible error, the judgment or decree appealed from will be affirmed, although the motion to dismiss as frivolous is adjudged not well taken.
• In this case the defendants below, appellants here, by their answer suggest that the bill of complaint, which was for foreclosure of a mortgage, was defective for want of *376proper parties complainant,’ .By special leave of court the Chancellor assigned the- causé for argument as a motion upon that objection only.'. See Section- 17, Chapter 14658, Acts of 1931, “1931 Chancery Act.” The motion to strike the challenged portion of the -.defendants’ answer was granted. The appeal is from that order.
We find ample authority to support the order appealed from, in Section 14 of the 1931 Chancery Act, which pro-' vides that:
“When tlie question is one of common or general interest to many persons constituting a class so numerous as to make it impractical to bring them all before the Court, one or more may sue or defend for the whole.”
In this case the suit is one for foreclosure of a mortgage brought by representatives of the Grand International Division of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers as complainants. The “Brotherhood” is "an unincorporated association of working men, whose membership is shown to be -so numerous as to make’ it impracticable to'bring all of the members thereof before the court. Consequently one or more, as representative- of -the whole membership, may sue for the whole under Section 14 of the 1931 Chancery Act.
The question involved here was considered and determined below’ under Section 17 of the 1931 Chancery Act’ as a-question of parties to the suit. ' The objection as to parties was overruled and it is that ruling which constitutes the sole error assigned on .this appeal. Section 14 of the statute, as hereinbefore referred to, makes it quite clear that as to parties, the suit is sufficient and should proceed, with leave to defendants, if they are advised, -to; contest on final hearing, the validity of the assignment of mortgage as á question going to the merits of complainants’ right .to have *377a decree of foreclosure, rather than as a'question of parties - to the proceeding itself.
There is no occasion for retaining the case on the docket for further argument of consideration; therefore, on the-authority of Grand Lodge, etc., v. Stroud, supra, the order appealed from will at this time be affirmed as a means of disposing of the case now before us on motion to dismiss the appeal as frivolous.
Affirmed.
Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and BrowN and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frankel v. City OF Miami Beach, 340 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1976)…les v. Central Allapattae Properties, 145 Fla. 123, 198 So. 819 (1940); Dunscombe v. Smith, 139 Fla. 497, 190 So. 796 (1939); Allen v. Avondale Co., 135 Fla. 6, 185 So. 137 (1938); Olds v. Alvord, 133 Fla. 345, 183 So. 711 (1938); Meier v. Johnston, 110 Fla. 374, 149 So. 185 (1933); Pinellas County v. Town of Belleair Shore, 180 So. 2d 510 (Fla.App.2d 1965); and Port Royal, Inc. v. Conboy, 154 So. 2d 734 (Fla.App.2d 1965). Similarly, these requirements have been held to be satisfied as to a single plaintiff…
-
Dunscombe v. Smith, 139 Fla. 497 (Fla. 1939)…first closing. When the question is one of common or general interest to many persons constituting a class so numerous as to make it impractical to bring them all before the court, one or more may sue or defend for the whole. See Meier v. Johnston, 110 Fla. 374, 149 So. 185. We fail to find error in the record. The decree appealed from is hereby affirmed. Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J.,.concur. Terrell, C. J., concurs in opinion and judgment. Thomas, J., disqualified. Justice Buford not participating…
-
Ronald v. State ex rel. John S. Harris, 113 Fla. 859 (Fla. 1934)…proceedings in error as frivolous, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that in lieu of a ruling upon the motion for dismissal of the writ of error, the judgment shall be and the same is hereby affirmed on the authority of Meier v. Johnson, 110 Fla. 374, 149 Sou. Rep. 185, and cases cited therein. Judgment affirmed on motion to dismiss proceedings in error as frivolous. . Davis, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Grand Lodge v. Daisy Good all Stroud, 107 Fla. 152 (Fla. 1932)