DOWELL
v.
MITCHELL; MITCHELL V. DOWELL
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 Supreme Court reversed a Circuit Court decree in an equity action where the plaintiff sought to enforce a mortgage executed on property that the defendant's heirs owned, not the mortgagor as claimed. The Court held that because the mortgage was invalid due to defective title and the plaintiffs had an adequate legal remedy by suing on the underlying promissory notes, the equity court lacked jurisdiction to proceed and should have dismissed the bill without prejudice.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
[*432] Mr. Justice Woods,
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of .the court.
Without going into a discussion of the evidence on the subject, wft declare pur opinion to be that the Circuit Court was right'in holding that the title to the property described in the mortgage executed by Brazell in the name of the late firm of Barron & Brazell-had never been either in the late firm or in Brazell, but was in Barron, the deceased member of the firm, at the time of his death, arid that at the date of the mortgage the title of .the mortgaged, premises was in -his heirs.
When this fact was established by the evidence, the court below, sitting as a court of equity, had np jurisdiction to proceed in the cause. -There was nothing on which it could act but-the' protnissory notes, and to enforce their payment the complainant's had a plain, adequate, and-complete remedy at law.
The rule is that where a eause of action cognizable at law is entertained in equity on the ground, of sorñe equitable relief sought by the bill, which it turns out cannot-, for defect of proof or other reason, be granted, the court is without jurisdiction to proceed further, and should dismiss the bill without prejudice. Russell v. Clarke, 7 Cranch, 69; Price's Patent Candle Co. v. Bauwen's Patent Candle Co., 4 Kay & J. 727; Bailey v. Taylor, 1 Russ. & M. 73; French v. Howard, 3 Bibb (Ky.), 301; Robinson v. Gilbreth, 4 id. 183; Nourse v. Gregory, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 378.
We are of opinion, therefore, that the decree of the Circuit Court should be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the bill without prejudice to an action at law on the notes which the invalid mortgage purported to secure ; and it is
So ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Julia Miller and Renick v. Smith, 97 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)…. Co., 54 Fla. 635, 45 So. 574, 16 L.R.A.,N.S., 307; W. B. Harbeson Lbr. Co. v. Geneva Mill Co., 116 Fla. 342, 156 So. 710. . Supra Note 2. . Lewis v. Yale, 4 Fla. 418, 437; Gentry-Futch Co. v. Gentry, 90 Fla. 595, 106 So. 473; Dowell v. Mitchell, 105 U.S. 430, 26 L.Ed. 1142. . Smith v. Kallio, 94 Fla. 895, 114 So. 666. . Rule 1.39, 1954 R.C.P. 30 F.S.A. Frierson v. Frierson, 110 Fla. 416, 149 So. 18.…
-
United States v. Bitter Root Dev. Co., 200 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1906)
-
Toucey v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 102 F.2d 16 (8th Cir. 1939)…. 271]; Price’s Patent Candle Co. v. Bauwer’s Patent Candle Co., 4 Kay & J. 727; Baily v. Taylor, 1 Russ. & M. 73; French v. Howard, 3 Bibb (Ky.) 301; Robinson v. Gilbreth, 4 Bibb (Ky.) 183; Nourse v. Gregory, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 378.” Dowell v. Mitchell, 105 U.S. 430, loc. cit. 432, 26 L.Ed. 1142. The illustration of the rule is where it is made to appear in an equity suit brought to foreclose a mortgage or other lien that there is in fact no valid lien enforceable in equity. In such cases, the equity court may…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Russell v. Executors, 7 Cranch 69 (U.S. 1812)