LYKES BROTHERS FLORIDA COMPANY
v.
ZIBA GLENN KING AND HELEN G. KING, AN INFANT, JOINED BY HER MOTHER, AND NEXT FRIEND, ZACHARY KING, IN HER OWN RIGHT
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.
Lykes Brothers Florida Company appealed an interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss a bill of complaint for want of equity in a dispute involving alleged mismanagement of partnership assets and cattle transactions. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the bill adequately stated a cause of action in equity sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss.
The amended bill of complaint stated a sufficient cause of action in equity to withstand the motion to dismiss. A court of equity has jurisdiction to determine the appellant's rights in relation to the rights of all parties when the complicated nature of the transactions requires comprehensive relief that cannot be adequately provided through other remedies.
“where a court of equity has jurisdiction of the particular kind of controversy attempted to be set up in issuable form in and by a bill of complaint appropriately filed in the proper chancery court, and such facts have been positively alleged in the bill delineating such controversy that, if admitted to be true as alleged for the purposes of demurrer, will entitle the complainant to any equitable relief whatsoever, then a motion to dismiss such bill of complaint under the 1931 Chancery Act for want of equity, ought not to be granted.”
Establishes the controlling rule for when a motion to dismiss for want of equity should be denied
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLykes Brothers Florida Company, a corporation, purchased a stock of cattle allegedly constituting partnership assets from assignees. The bill of compl…
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 Bill Of Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
— -Many specific propositions of law — nineteen in number to he exact — have been raised and argued in the brief of appellant in support of its appeal from an interlocutory order denying its motion in the court below to dismiss appellees’ bill of complaint for want of equity.
The rule is well settled that where a court of equity has ■jurisdiction of the particular kind of controversy attempted to be set up in issuable form in and by a bill of complaint appropriately filed in the proper chancery court, and such facts have been positively alleged in the bill delineating such controversy that, if admitted to be true as alleged for the purposes of demurrer, will entitle the complainant to any equitable relief whatsoever, then a motion to dismiss such bill of complaint under the 1931 Chancery Act (Chapter 14658, Acts 1931) for want of equity, ought not to be granted.
*103A motion to dismiss under Section 33 of the 1931 Chancery Act seeks to finally terminate the suit by dismissing the bill and, if granted, results in a final decree for the defendant unless the Chancellor makes his order sustaining such motion conditioned upon an amendment of the bill to state a better cause in equity. M. Bright Farms, Inc., v. Broward County Port Authority, 117 Fla. 361, 158 Sou. Rep. 70; Hewett v. Punta Gorda State Bank, 108 Fla. 39, 145 Sou. Rep. 883; Pohl Beauty School, Inc., v. City of Miami, 118 Fla. 664, 159 Sou. Rep. 789; Warren v. Tampa Mortgage Investors Co., 112 Fla. 555, 150 Sou. Rep. 738; Wettstein v. Gilbert, 105 Fla. 427, 141 Sou. Rep. 297.
Circuit Courts, as courts of equity, have jurisdiction to compel accounting and discovery, and to give appropriate relief, in cases of mismanagement of estates by administrators, executors and trustees, particularly where the probate courts cannot give the comprehensive relief necessary to do complete justice in the premises. Opitz v. Morgan, 68 Fla. 469, 67 Sou. Rep. 67.
While the sole interest of appellant in the subject matter of this suit appears to be that of a purchaser of a stock of cattle allegedly constituting partnership assets from alleged assignees thereof who are charged with having sold same illegally, the nature of their relationship, alleged in the bill of complaint, as amended, with respect to the complicated transactions set up, is such that a court of equity should determine appellant’s right in relation to the rights of all of the parties to this cause in the course of deciding the controversy as a whole, and therefore the motion of appellant to dismiss the bill for want of equity as to it was properly denied.
We regard it as inappropriate at this time to go further than to determine that the bill of complaint as amended *104states a cause of action in equity sufficient to withstand the motion to dismiss filed by the appellant Lykes Brothers Florida Company, a corporation, remitting for future consideration and determination the specific questions argued in appellees’ brief, should these be found necessary to de-, cide at some future time in the progress of the litigation.
Affirmed and remanded.
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marvell Womack v. Burton F. Goldberg and Joyce S. Goldberg, 117 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…199 So. 44. Cf. Wolf v. Cleveland Electric Co., FIa.1952, 58 So. 2d 153; Anderson v. Carlton, 156 Fla. 170, 22 So. 2d 874. See also Barns, Appeal and Error, 12 U.Miami L.Rev. 541, 551-2 (1958). But see Lykes Bros. Florida Co. v. King, 125 Fla. 101, 169 So. 595; Dudemaine v. Shaw, 153 Fla. 16, 13 So. 2d 444; Schwenck v. Jacobs, 160 Fla. 33, 33 So. 2d 592. . Other federal eases which hold to the same effect are Jung v. K. & D. Mining Co., 356 U.S. 335, 78 S.Ct. 764, 2 L.Ed. 806; Cleary Brothers v. Christie…
-
Anderson v. T. Mabry Carlton and wife Septa Carlton, 156 Fla. 170 (Fla. 1945)…bill seeks to finally terminate the suit. If granted, the order in the motion is final, unless the chancellor enters the order conditioned upon an amendment of the bill to state a cause in equity.” Lykes Bros. Fla. Co. v. King, et al., 125 Fla. 101, 169 So. 595, and Saffran v. Adler, 152 Fla. 404, 12 So. (2nd) 124. We have held in several cases that a motion to dismiss a bill, under the 1931 Chancery Act, for most practical purposes, is the equivalent of a general demurrer. See Pohl Beauty School, Inc., v…
-
Megdall v. Scott Corp., 40 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1949)…. A court of chancery has the jurisdiction and power to adjudicate the claim of this creditor against the said defendants. See Section 11 of Article 5 of the Constitution of Florida; Section 611.31 to 611.34, F.S.A.; Lykes Bros. Florida Co. v. King, 125 Fla. 101, 169 So. 595; Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, Vol. 3, pp. 890 to 914; Chapter 691, F.S.A. It is well established law that the proper forum to sue for and recover a realtor's commission is in a court of law. An exception to this general rule was re…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Fed. Land Bank of Columbia v. Godwin, 107 Fla. 537 (Fla. 1931)
- Warren v. Tampa Mortg. Invs. Co., 112 Fla. 555 (Fla. 1933)
- Opitz v. Morgan, 68 Fla. 469 (Fla. 1914)
- Martha Bright Farms, Inc. v. Broward Cnty. Port Auth., 117 Fla. 361 (Fla. 1934)
- Hewitt v. Punta Gorda State Bank, 108 Fla. 39 (Fla. 1933)
- Pohl Beauty Sch., Inc. v. City of Miami, 118 Fla. 664 (Fla. 1935)
- Wettstein v. Gilbert, 105 Fla. 427 (Fla. 1932)