R. G. MINICK
v.
MINICK DRUG COMPANY, INC., BIRD M. ROBINSON, FRANK P. ROBINSON, AND F. J. REDMAN
This case having been submitted upon the transcript of record and briefs and arguments of counsel, all of which has been duly considered, the- court is of the *622opinion that the decree appealed from should he and the same is hereby
Affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown, Buford, and Davis, J. J., concur!
On Petition for Rehearing.
We construe the language of the final decree to mean that the chancellor found that there was no fraud in the procuring of the contracts, copies of which are attached to the amended bill as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 respectively and made a part thereof, as shown by the transcript. The chancellor expressly declined to make any finding as to whether or not there had been any breach of the contract by Bird M. Robinson which might entitle appellant, who was plaintiff in the court below, to recover damages against Robinson, and declined to enter a money judgment in favor of appellant. The rule is well settled in this jurisdiction that in order to authorize a court of equity to retain jurisdiction and grant a purely legal remedy, such as a judgment for monetary damages for breach of contract, some substantial ground' of equitable jurisdiction must be both alleged and proven. Gentry-Futch Co. v. Gentry, 106 So. 473, 90 Fla. 595; Levitt v. Axelson, 135 So. Gentry, 106 So. 473, 90 Fla. 595; Levitt v. Axelson, 135 So. 553, 103 Fla. 233.
Rehearing denied.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
On Petition for Rehearing.
Per Curiam.
We construe the language of the final decree to mean that the chancellor found that there was no fraud in the procuring of the contracts, copies of which are attached to the amended bill as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 respectively and made a part thereof, as shown by the transcript. The chancellor expressly declined to make any finding as to whether or not there had been any breach of the contract by Bird M. Robinson which might entitle appellant, who was plaintiff in the court below, to recover damages against Robinson, and declined to enter a money judgment in favor of appellant. The rule is well settled in this jurisdiction that in order to authorize a court of equity to retain jurisdiction and grant a purely legal remedy, such as a judgment for monetary damages for breach of contract, some substantial ground' of equitable jurisdiction must be both alleged and proven. Gentry-Futch Co. v. Gentry, 106 So. 473, 90 Fla. 595; Levitt v. Axelson, 135 So. Gentry, 106 So. 473, 90 Fla. 595; Levitt v. Axelson, 135 So. 553, 103 Fla. 233.
Rehearing denied.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
B. Irwin Emery et ux. v. Int'l Glass & MFG., Inc., 249 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…d Halifax Construction Co. v. Chastain Groves, Inc. (Fla.App.1966), 192 So. 2d 15. Also, cf., Wood v. Wilson (Fla.1955), 84 So. 2d 32 and Miami Highland Park, Inc. v. Leslie (Fla.App.1962), 142 So. 2d 754. . See, Miníele v. Miníele Drug Co. (1935), 120 Fla. 621, 163 So. 228; Venice East, Inc. v. Manno (Fla.App.1966), 186 So. 2d 71; and Coleman v. Davis (Fla.App.1958), 106 So. 2d 81. . See, e. g., Braren v. Lawyers’ Realty Abstract Co. of Sarasota (Fla.App.1967), 196 So. 2d 244. . Effective January 1, 196…
-
Page v. Niagara Chem. Div. of Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 68 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1953)….A. 818; 39 Am.Jur. 374, Nuisances, sec. 121. It is elementary that equity jurisdiction cannot be invoked for the award of money damages except as an incident to a cause of action for other relief of an equitable' 'nature. Minick v. Minick Drug Co., 120 Fla. 621, 163 So. 228; Cobb v. Walker, 144 Fla. 600, 198 So. 324. As to the right of the plaintiffs to enjoin the defendant upon the theory of the maintenance of a public nuisance, the complaint is equally deficient. To entitle private individuals to mainta…
-
The Amphitrite Corp. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 147 Fla. 497 (Fla. 1941)…ut it must also be proved on the hearing.” See also Monteverde Development Corporation, et al. [*500] v. Howey-in-the-Hills, 102 Fla. 233, 135 So. 885; Chabot v. The Winter Park Co. and Dorn, 34 Fla. 258, 15 So. 756; Minick v. Minick Drug Co., Inc., 120 Fla. 621, 163 So. 228. The equitable grounds alleged to warrant a retention of this case in equity are nuisance features. The evidence fails to substantiate those allegations, hence equity will not retain jurisdiction. The plaintiff’s remedy at law was ade…
Authorities Cited
- Gentry-Futch Co. v. Gentry, 90 Fla. 595 (Fla. 1925)
- Levitt v. Ivar Axelson, 102 Fla. 233 (Fla. 1931)
- Palm Court Corp. v. Smith, 103 Fla. 233 (Fla. 1931)