SOUTHERN BREWING COMPANY
v.
R. L. MAY
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.
Southern Brewing Company appealed an order from the Hillsborough County Circuit Court denying various motions and pleas in a suit against R. L. May. The Florida Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration in light of a related decision in a parallel suit between the same parties in Pinellas County.
The court reversed and remanded the case, vacating the order appealed from and directing that the complainant be allowed to amend the bill of complaint as deemed advisable, with further pleadings and proceedings to follow in accordance with law.
“We therefore, hold that in equity and good conscience this case should be remanded to the court below with directions that the order appealed from be vacated and that complainant be allowed to amend his bill of complaint as he shall deem advisable”
Establishes the Court's holding to remand and vacate the lower court's order, allowing amendment of the complaint.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSouthern Brewing Company filed a bill of complaint against R. L. May. The defendant filed a plea in abatement, motions to strike certain portions of t…
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 Plea In Abatement cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal in this case is from an order containing four adjudications, as follows:
“1st. That defendant’s plea in abatement incorporated in the answer be and the same is hereby denied.
“2nd. That defendant’s motion to strike certain portions, and paragraphs of the bill of complaint as set forth and incorporated in its ans'wer, be and the same is hereby denied.
*783“3rd. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the bill of complaint for want of equity be and the same is hereby denied.
“4th. That plaintiff’s motion to strike Exhibit A to the bill of complaint herein and to dismiss the same be and the same is hereby denied.”
At the time this appeal was entered there was pending an appeal from an order made in the Circuit Court for Pinellas County in a suit between the same parties involving the same subject matter. We have disposed of the appeal from Pinellas County Circuit Court, with direction that the cause as there pending be dismissed. See opinion filed February 1st, 1936.
This disposition necessarily changes the status of the matters- involved in the cause pending in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County now before us on appeal. We therefore, hold that in equity and good conscience this case should be remanded to the court below with directions that the order appealed from be -vacated and that complainant be allowed to amend his bill of complaint as he shall deem advisable, serving copies thereof on opposing counsel, and that further pleadings and proceedings be had in accordance with law and the rules of practice.
That the costs of this appeal be prorated equally between the parties and that no recovery be had or taken on the supersedeas bond filed herein.
It is so ordered.
Remanded without prejudice.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aurora Enters., Inc. v. State, 395 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…r under review which were not before the lower tribunal. A court may depart from this principle when “by so doing, it can shorten litigation and best subserve the ends of justice.” 5B C.J.S. Appeal & Error § 1842 (1958); Southern Brewing Co. v. May, 122 Fla. 782, 165 So. 909 (1936); see, Storch v. Allgood, 184 So. 2d 170 (Fla.1966) (mootness); 5 Am.Jur.2d Appeal and Error § 728 (1962), and cases cited at n.18. . Plainly, no hard and fast rule may be laid down as to the precise period which constitutes a “m…