JACK EVERETT, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
THE MONKEY JUNGLE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND FRANK VINCENT DUMOND, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, APPELLEES
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 court reversed an order denying a motion to dismiss an equity complaint, holding that issues regarding the validity and effect of a settlement and release were properly triable in the original law action, not in a separate equity suit.
The issues relating to the validity and effect of the settlement and release were triable in the law action, and therefore, a separate equity suit was unnecessary and improper.
“Issues relating to the validity and effect of the alleged written, executed settlement and release pleaded by the defendants in the law action were triable therein, precluding the need or propriety of resorting to another forum for their determination.”
This quote establishes the core reasoning for reversing the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJack Everett sued The Monkey Jungle, Inc. and its driver for injuries sustained in a car accident. The defendants, in turn, filed a separate equity su…
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 Release cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an interlocutory appeal from a»» order denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss an equity complaint. The appeal has merit and we reverse.
The appellant Jack Everett, Jr., was injured when the automobile in which he was a passenger collided with one owned by The Monkey Jungle, Inc. and driven by Frank Vincent Dumond. Everett sued them at law for damages for personal injuries. The defendants in that action then filed this suit in equity against Everett. In their complaint it was alleged that their indemnity insurer had settled with Everett for $215.37 in consideration of which he had made and delivered a release, and that the settlement and release had been pleaded by them in defense of the law action. They sought herein to have the settlement and release declared effective and determinative of Everett’s claims, and to enjoin his law action.
*874Issues relating to the validity and effect of the alleged written, executed settlement and release pleaded by the defendants in the law action were triable therein, precluding the need or propriety of resorting to another forum for their determination. See Coe v. Diener, Fla.App.1964, 159 So.2d 269, 272; Savage v. Edgar, 86 N.J.Eq. 205, 98 A. 407, 3 A.L.R. 1021; cf. Burns v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., Fla.App. 1963, 157 So.2d 84.
Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Burns v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 157 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- COE v. Diener, 159 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)