W. T. MCILWAIN, ET UX.,
v.
MORTGAGE & INVESTING CORP.
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.
This case involves a tenant's appeal of a lower court's order striking their claim for damages while allowing an injunction and accounting claim to proceed. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding that the legal remedy for damages was adequate and did not need to be pursued in equity.
Yes, the lower court was correct in striking the claim for damages because the remedy at law was adequate. The denial of the motion to dismiss was also implicitly upheld as the court affirmed the order allowing the injunction and accounting to proceed.
“An injunction to restrain distress for rent' proceedings and an accounting as a claim for damages are not so interrelated as to make the order striking the claim for damages erroneous when the accounting sought does not require equitable procedure and the remedy at law for damages claimed is adequate.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for upholding the striking of the damages claim.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceComplainants filed a bill of complaint seeking an injunction against distress for rent proceedings, an accounting, and damages for breach of contract.…
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 Remedy At Law cases and more on FLexlaw
The bill of complaint herein sought an injunction against distress for rent proceedings and also an accounting and damages for breach of contract under which the tenants held possession. On motion to dismiss the bill of complaint and to strike all claims for damages, the court denied the motion to dismiss and “ordered and decreed that the said motion to strike all that portion of the bill of complaint with reference to the claim for damages against the defendant bé, and the same is hereby granted, and said complainants are hereby ordered to file an amended bill of complaint in this cause on or before the 30th day of January, *231A. D. 1933, omitting the allegations of, and claims for damages against the defendant.”
Compláinants appealed, and defendant filed as a cross assignment of error the denial of the motion to dismiss the bill of complaint.
An injunction to restrain distress for rent' proceedings and an accounting as a claim for damages are not so interrelated as to make the order striking the claim for damages erroneous when the accounting sought does not require equitable procedure and the remedy at law for damages claimed is adequate. The bill for injunction may be retained for appropriate proceedings.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.