C. L. RIDLEY
v.
LESLIE J. SMOTHERMAN, ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS KEY'S CHILE PARLOR
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 the denial of a motion to dismiss an injunction suit, finding that the grounds for dismissal were matters of defense rather than reasons to dismiss the entire complaint.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss. The grounds presented in the motion to dismiss constitute matters of defense that should be pleaded and addressed in the proceedings, rather than grounds for dismissing the entire complaint.
“We cannot say that the bill of complaint is without equity and it appears that the allegations contained in the motion to dismiss are such allegations' as might be pleaded in defense.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for affirming the lower court's decision, indicating that the grounds for dismissal were valid defenses rather than fatal flaws in the complaint.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees filed suit seeking an injunction to prevent appellant from using the trade name "Key" or "Key's" in connection with selling "chile." Appella…
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 Equity cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellees filed suit for injunction against appellant to prohibit the use of the trade name “Key” or “Key’s” in connection with the operation of any business selling “chile” or in connection with the sale of the product known as “chile.”
There was a motion to dismiss' the bill of complaint and also a motion to strike paragraphs 3 and 4 of the bill of complaint. Both motions were denied and from that Order appeal was taken.
*702•Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the bill of complaint allege the perr tinent and material facts upon which the complainants relied for the relief prayed.
The motion to dismis's was upon the ground, first: that the bill' contains no equity and the other grounds of the motion attacked the bill of complaint upon the grounds in substance that it appears from the allegations of the bill, that the- complainants are guilty of laches and that the acts complained of have been acquiesced in and approved by the complainants' and their predecessors in the right and that the name “Key” is the name of a third party to which the complainants are not entitled to the exclusive use.
We cannot say that the bill of complaint is without equity and it appears that the allegations contained in the motion to dismiss are such allegations' as might be pleaded in defense. Therefore the Order appealed from should be affirmed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. ' '
It is so ordered.
Affirmed and remanded.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rhea v. Bacon, 87 F.2d 976 (5th Cir. 1937)…466; O’Grady v. McDonald, 72 N.J.Eq. 805, 66 A. 175; Howard v. Henriques, 5 N.Y.Super.Ct. (3 Sandf.) 725; Marsh v. Billings, 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 322, 54 Am. Dec. 723; Gottdiener v. Joe’s Restaurant, 111 Fla. 741, 149 So. 646; Ridley . v. Smotherman, 116 Fla. 701, 156 So. 605; Carolina Pines v. Catalina Pines, 128 Cal. App. 84, 16 P.(2d) 781; Hall v. Holstrom, 106 Cal.App. 563, 289 P. 668; McGhan v. McGhan, 115 Fla. 414, 155 So. 653; Blue Goose Auto Service v. Blue Goose Super Service Station, 110 N.J.Eq. 54…