JEAN A. HOPKINS, ET VIR.,
v.
R. L. ANDERSON, JR., ET AL.
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 held that the lower court erred in dismissing the amended bills of complaint, finding them to be substantively sound and containing equity. The case emphasizes equity's focus on substance over form.
Yes, the Chancellor erred. The second and third amended bills of complaint were substantively good and contained equity, warranting their dismissal.
“In this case the Court is of the opinion that the second amended bill of complaint filed October 29, 1931, as well as' the third amended bill of complaint filed January 14, 1933, were and are each good in substance and contain equity, for which reason it was error for the Chancellor to sustain the motions to dismiss or to dismiss the same or either of them.”
Establishes the court's finding that the lower court erred in dismissing the bills of complaint.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff filed a second and then a third amended bill of complaint. The Chancellor sustained motions to dismiss both amended bills. The appellate…
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.
In this case the Court is of the opinion that the second amended bill of complaint filed October 29, 1931, as well as' the third amended bill of complaint filed January 14, 1933, were and are each good in substance and contain equity, for which reason it was error for the Chancellor to sustain the motions to dismiss or to dismiss the same or either of them. See Bryce v. Bull, 106 Fla. 336, 143 Sou. Rep. 409; Dexter & Carpenter v. Houston, *4020 Fed. (2nd) 647; Proctor v. Hearne, 100 Fla. 1180, 131 Sou. Rep. 173; Quinn v. Phipps, 93 Fla. 805, 113 Sou. Rep. 419, 54 A. L. R. 1173; Menefee v. Oxnam, 42 Cal. App. 81, 183 Pac. Rep. 379; Willis v. Andrews, 73 Fla. 384, 75 Sou. Rep. 618; Biscayne Realty & Ins. Co. v. Ostend Realty Co., 107 Fla. 1, 148 Sou. Rep. 560; Third Avenue Co. v. Keely, 111 Fla. 46, 194 Sou. Rep. 30 (Opinion filed May 30, 1933). The principle running through many of the cases cited is that in appropriate suits equity looks to the substance, not the form of things, and will interfere to grant equitable relief in cases properly falling within the scope of that maxim, where the allegations of a bill of complaint, as in this case, are sufficient to invoke the application of such doctrine to the circumstances alleged.
Reversed and remanded for appropriate proceedings'.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Brown, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ex Parte: Archibald Livingston, 116 Fla. 640 (Fla. 1934)…Through an error the mandate was sent to Madison County instead of to Lafayette County, so about ten months later this Court ordered the mandate to be reissued and sent to the Circuit Court of Lafayette County. See Livingston v. State, 113 Fla. 391, 152 South. Rep. 205. The last order was made December 29, 1933. Thereafter, at a special term of the court held in Lafayette County, the court remanded the case to Madison County on the petition of accused. The State Attorney demurred to the pleas in statement which…1 / 2
-
Colonel v. Reed, 379 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…in jurisdiction nor vacuum in its application. It is either effective full of force or not at all.” The mandate of an appellate court is the official method of communicating its judgment to the inferior tribunal. Livingston v. State, 113 Fla. 391, 152 So. 205 (Fla.1933); Tierney v. Tierney, 290 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); 3 Fla.Jur.2d § 402, Appellate Review. As Justice Whitfield phrased it in his concurring opinion in the Clearwater case, supra: Where on appeal or writ of error, the Supreme Court af…
-
D. E. R. Co. v. Warriner, 156 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…cember 12, 1962, recorded December 13, 1962, in Minute Book 91, Page 117 in the office of the Clerk of the Civil Court of Record in Dade County, it is hereby ordered that a corrected mandate be reissued herein. See Livingston v. State, 113 Fla. 391, 152 So. 205; McGregor v. Hammock, 114 Fla. 259, 154 So. 191; Martin v. Martin, Fla.1962, 139 So. 2d 406 ; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 389. It is so ordered.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Porte F. Quinn v. Phipps, 113 So. 419 (Fla. 1927)
- Donella Proctor v. Hearne, 100 Fla. 1180 (Fla. 1930)
- Biscayne Realty & Ins. Co. v. Ostend Realty Co., 109 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1933)
- Bryce v. Bull, 106 Fla. 336 (Fla. 1932)
- The Third Ave. Co. v. Keely, 111 Fla. 46 (Fla. 1933)
- Wills v. Andrews, 73 Fla. 384 (Fla. 1917)
- Coconut Grove Exch. Bank v. Fleming Novelty Works, 107 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1932)