R. E. THOMAS, ET AL.,
v.
SHEPPARD-NOTTER CO., A CORP., ETC., ET AL.
R. E. THOMAS, ET AL.,
SHEPPARD-NOTTER CO., A CORP., ETC., ET AL.
121 Fla. 191
Florida Supreme Court (1935)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 163 So. 524
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
The appeal brings for review order overruling motion to dismiss bill of complaint, the purpose of which was to foreclose on an alleged mortgage indebtedness.
While a motion for compulsory amendment and for bill of particulars' might have been warranted by reason of some indefiniteness in the allegation of the bill, it appears that the bill of complaint is not entirely without equity and, therefore, the order of the Chancellor must be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Brown, Buford, and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Iley v. Harris, 345 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1977)…mmissioners shall keep a record of the names [*337] of the persons taking out such a license, the name of the maker of the firearm so licensed to be carried, and the caliber and number of the same.” In Smith v. State, ex rel. Osborne, 121 Fla. 241, 163 So. 524 (Fla.1935), affirming the judgment of the trial court awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus directed to the Board of County Commissioners of Marion County, the court considered the subject statute and stated: “The only question presented here was…
-
Iley v. Harris, 339 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…contention that public safety and the general welfare demand that discretion be exercised in determining whether to issue these permits, we are cognizant that the same statutory enactment was reviewed in Smith v. State ex rel. Osborne, 121 Fla. 241, 163 So. 524 (1935). There, the Board of County Commissioners of Marion County, in responding to an alternative writ of mandamus, contended that the relators did not show any necessity to have a license to carry a firearm. There, as here, there was no question o…