MCCASKILL INVESTMENT CO.
v.
W. S. GREEN
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.
McCaskill Investment Company appealed a trial court's dismissal of a bill for rescission of a mortgage contract and injunction against the mortgagee, following an earlier successful foreclosure appeal. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, finding no clear error in the Chancellor's decision on the merits.
The trial court did not clearly err in dismissing the bill on its merits based on the equities as shown by the pleadings and evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, assuming arguendo that the bill was maintainable despite appearing to be an attempt to relitigate the earlier foreclosure case.
“Assuming that the bill of complaint was maintainable at all, as against the objection that it was an attempted indirect method of relitigating what had already been decided on the appeal taken in the foreclosure case, it is not at all established by the present record that the Chancellor clearly erred in dismissing the bill on its merits as the equities appeared from the pleadings and the evidence”
The Court's statement of the standard of review and the basis for affirming the dismissal, assuming arguendo that the bill could be maintained despite potentially being an indirect attempt to relitigate the earlier appeal.
McCaskill Investment Company had previously appealed a foreclosure case to the Florida Supreme Court, which affirmed the foreclosure decree except as …
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 Rescission Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
After this Court had decided the appeal brought here in a foreclosure case under the style of McCaskill Investment Company v. Green, 97 Fla. 290, 120 Sou. Rep. 555, and had affirmed the decree appealed from in all respects except as to attorneys’ fees, the McCaskill Investment Company, as complainant in this suit, filed its bill in the Circuit Court of Holmes County to rescind the contract out of which grew the-mortgage which was foreclosed in the proceedings affirmed here on the appellate proceedings referred to Special relief of various kinds was prayed, including that of injunction against Green, the successful appellee in the previous case, to prohibit him from enforcing the foreclosure decree that this Court had affirmed on McCaskill Investment Company’s appeal in the foreclosure case.
The present case was fully tried in the court below on bill, answer and testimony taken. On final hearing the Chancellor dissolved a temporary injunction that he had granted and dismissed complainant’s bill of complaint on its merits. This appeal is from the final decree dismissing the bill.
*635To review and discuss in detail the pleadings and facts of this case would subserve no useful purpose. Assuming that the bill of complaint was maintainable at all, as against the objection that it was an attempted indirect method of relitigating what had already been decided on the appeal taken in the foreclosure case, it is not at all established by the present record that the Chancellor clearly erred in dismissing the bill on its merits as the equities appeared from the pleadings and the evidence; therefore, the decree should be, and is hereby affirmed on the authority of Peacock Hotel Co. v. Shipman, 103 Fla. 633, 138 Sou. Rep. 44 (second headnote), and kindred cases.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Ellis and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Peacock Hotel, Inc. v. Cordelia Shipman and A. K. Shipman, 103 Fla. 633 (Fla. 1931)
- McCaskill Inv. Co. v. Green, 97 Fla. 290 (Fla. 1929)