SUPERIOR UNIFORMS, INC., AND HIALEAH SPRINGS MOTORS, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
NEWAY UNIFORM AND TOWEL SUPPLY OF FLORIDA, INC., APPELLEE
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.
Superior Uniforms and Hialeah Springs Motors appealed a final decree that awarded only monetary damages rather than equitable relief in an equity court action. The appellate court affirmed, holding that equity courts may award damages as incidental relief when the primary equitable remedy becomes impossible due to the defendant's actions or changed circumstances.
An equity court may retain jurisdiction and award damages as incidental relief when a cause is commenced in good faith within the court's equitable jurisdiction, but the primary equitable remedy becomes impossible to carry out due to the defendant's actions or changed circumstances, in order to do complete justice between the parties.
“A court of equity may, when necessary to do complete justice between the parties, ascertain and award damages as incidental to the main relief sought.”
Establishes the foundational principle that equity courts have authority to award damages when necessary for complete justice.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff (appellee Neway Uniform and Towel Supply) filed a complaint in equity court seeking equitable relief. By the time of trial, the chancell…
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 Incidental Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendants appeal a final decree which granted no equitable relief but entered a money judgment for the plaintiff and against the appellants. It is first contended that the chancellor should have dismissed the complaint because a clear and adequate remedy existed at law. If this situation existed, the appellants should have moved for an order to transfer the action pursuant to Rule 1.39(a) Florida Rules of Civil Procedure,1 30 F.S.A. Staiger v. Greb, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 494. Such a motion may be more effectively presented after the real nature of the cause of action has been made to appear by discovery or otherwise. Cf., Commercial Engineering and Contracting Co. v. Beals, Fla.App.1958, 99 So.2d 882.
The main thrust of this appeal is that there was no jurisdiction in the equity court to proceed at the time of trial because at that time the only relief possible was a money judgment. It is apparent on this record that the chancellor found that the plaintiff, appellee, was entitled to equitable relief at the time of the filing of the complaint but that because of the lapse of time such relief was not judicially expedient at the time of the final decree.
In Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Saffold Bros. Produce Co., 121 Fla. 833, 164 So. 681, 683, the Supreme Court of Florida sustained the final decree of the chancellor who granted damages but no equitable relief:
“A court of equity may, when necessary to do complete justice between the parties, ascertain and award damages *466as incidental to the main relief sought. See Taylor v. Florida East Coast R. Co., 54 Fla. 635, 45 So. 574, 16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 307, 127 Am.St.Rep. 155, 14 Ann.Cas. 472; and W. B. Harbeson Lumber Co. v. Geneva Mill Co., 116 Fla. 342, 156 So. 710.
“Where a cause within the jurisdiction of a court of equity is begun in good faith, and it thereafter appears that, by reason of the acts of the defendant, the equitable remedy that is due to complainant is impossible to be carried out, the court may decree money compensation in lieu of such other remedy.”
On authority of the rule quoted we hold that no error has been shown under this point.
Appellants’ other points directed to the proof of damages and procedural errors have been examined and found not to present reversible error.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beavers v. Conner, 258 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…r and it is impossible to return him to the status quo as in the instant case. Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Saffold Bros. Produce Co., 121 Fla. 833, 164 So. 681; Superior Uniforms, Inc. v. Neway Uniform & Towel Supply of Florida, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 464. Therefore, no error has been made to appear in proceeding as the trial judge did in this matter. As to the second point, we find no error in failing to invoke the rule excluding witnesses. This is a matter within the discretion of a trial court. R…
-
Durable Unif. & Linen Supply Co. v. Sanitary Linen Serv. Co., 183 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…appears sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charges against him. See: Miami Laundry Company v. Sanitary Linen Service Co., Fla.App.1961, 131 So. 2d 519; Superior Uniforms, Inc. v. Neway Uniform and Towel Supply of Florida, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 464; 30 Am.Jur., Interference, § 42, p. 84. Elementary in determining the propriety of a temporary injunction is the necessity for the appellant to show an abuse of discretion in its entry. See: North Dade Water Co. v. Adken Land Co., Fla.App.1959, 114…
Authorities Cited
- Taylor v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 54 Fla. 635 (Fla. 1907)
- Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Saffold Bros. Produce Co., 121 Fla. 833 (Fla. 1935)
- W. B. Harbeson Lumber Co. v. Geneva Mill Co., 116 Fla. 342 (Fla. 1934)
- Staiger v. Nat J. Greb and Bessie Bloomberg, 97 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Commercial Eng'g & Contracting Co., Inc. v. Beals, 99 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)