CHARLES WILLIAMS AND THELMA W. WILLIAMS, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
AMERICAN CRAFTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; L. T. AHRENHOLZ; MRS. L. T. AHRENHOLZ, HIS WIFE; AND LENDERS LIMITED, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 appellate court reversed and remanded a creditor's bill action because the lower court's decree was contradictory, dismissing the bill while reserving jurisdiction to determine the creditors' claim. The court also noted that its prior opinion would necessitate changes to the decree.
No, a court cannot dismiss a claim with prejudice and also reserve jurisdiction to rule upon and determine that same claim, as such a decree is contradictory.
“The decree is thus contradictory because the chancellor may not dismiss a claim with prejudice and also reserve jurisdiction to rule upon and determine it.”
This quote explains the primary reason for reversing the lower court's decree.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs-creditors sought to follow corporate assets through a creditor's bill. The trial court entered an amended final decree dismissing the 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.
This appeal involves a further phase of the controversy dealt with in our opinion in Williams v. American Crafts, Inc., Fla. App.1961, 129 So.2d 165. The plaintiffs-creditors here appeal from an amended final decree in an action where they sought by creditor’s bill to follow assets of the corporation. The decree dismissed the bill but provided that certain money allegedly belonging to the corporation should be retained by a defendant, Lenders Limited, Inc., subject to the claim of the plaintiffs, and further thát jurisdiction was reserved to rule upon and determine that claim. . ,
The decree is thus contradictory because the chancellor may not dismiss a claim with prejudice and also reserve jurisdiction to rule upon and determine it. It would therefore have been necessary to remand this cause without regard to the other findings, but it now appears that the holdings in our previous opinion referred to above will require material change in the decree here appealed, although not available to the chancellor at the time this decree was entered. It is thus necessary to reverse the amended final decree and remand this cause for further proceedings not inconsistent with our opinion in Williams v. American Crafts, Inc., supra.
It is so ordered.
HORTON, C. J., PEARSON, and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
The City OF Pensacola v. Blanchard, 232 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…2d 193; Canal Authority of the State of Florida v. C. S. Hayman et al., (Fla.App.1969), 230 So. 2d 193; Litzel v. Canal Authority of the State of Florida, (Fla.App.1969), 230 So. 2d 164; Miller v. Florida Inland Navigation District, (Fla.App.1961), 130 So. 2d 615. CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.…
-
Knappen v. Division OF Administration, 352 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…sary. It has long been the law in Florida that a condemnor may take private property for public use only when it is necessary for such use. Wilton v. St. Johns County, 98 Fla. 26, 123 So. 527 (1929). In Miller v. Florida Inland Navigation District, 130 So. 2d 615, 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961) the court held: There is no logical difference between the well-recognized illegality in taking a greater quantity of property than is necessary to serve a particular public use and that of taking a greater interest or esta…
-
Dade Cnty. v. Paxson, 270 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…y is being acquired. See: Canal Authority v. Miller, Fla.1970, 243 So. 2d 131; Wilton v. St. Johns County, 98 Fla. 26, 123 So. 527; Staplin v. Canal Authority, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 853; Miller v. Florida Inland Navigation District, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 615. Therefore, for the reasons and upon the authorities cited and discussed, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. Am. Crafts, Inc., 129 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)