JOSEPH SCHONFELD, SOMETIMES KNOWN AS JOE SCHONFELD,
v.
MIRIAM SMITH, A MARRIED WOMAN, WHOSE HUSBAND HAS DESERTED HER FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS, BY LAURA KNOWLES, HER NEXT FRIEND, LELA PIZE, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, ETC., ET AL.
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed an order denying a motion to dismiss a bill of complaint, holding that a bill of complaint will not be dismissed if it states a case entitling the plaintiff to any relief, including under the implied prayer for general relief.
No, a bill of complaint should not be dismissed if it states a case entitling the plaintiff to any relief, either under a specific prayer or the implied prayer for general relief.
“Every bill of complaint shall be considered to pray for general, relief.”
This quote establishes the statutory basis for the implied prayer for general relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appeal stemmed from an order denying a motion to dismiss a bill of complaint. While the specific relief prayed for might not have been fully suppo…
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 Equitable Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
— The’ appeal in this case is from an order denying motion to dismiss the bill of complaint.
We can see no good purpose to be served by promulgating an opinion in disposing of the appeal. It is sufficient to say that although the complainant may not have been entitled under the allegation's of the bill to the relief specifically prayed, Section 28 of the 1931 Chancery Practice Act provides:
“Every bill of complaint shall be considered to pray for general, relief.”
For application of this provision see McCarthy’s Annotated Florida Chancery Act, 2nd Ed. 75.
It appears to be well settled that no objection to the prayer of the bill of complaint may be raised by motion to dismiss because if the bill states a case entitling the plaintiff to any relief under any special prayer or under the implied prayer for general relief, it will not be dismissed. See Phifer v. Abbott, 73 Fla. 402, 74 So. 488; Fla. So. R. Co. v. Hill, 40 Fla. 1, 23 So. 566, 74 A. S. R. 124; Orlando v. Equ. Bldg,, etc., Assn., 45 Fla. 507, 33 So. 986; Brokaw v. McDougla, 20 Fla. 212; Isleworth Grove Co. v. Orange County, 79 Fla. 208, 84 So. 83; Raulerson v. Peeples, 79 Fla. 367, 84 So. 370; So. Fla. Citrus Land Co. v. Walden, 59 Fla. 606, 51 So. 554; White Engr. Co. v. Peoples St. Bank, 81 Fla. 35, *46487 So. 753; Hewitt v. Punta Gorda St. Bank, 108 Fla. 39, 145 So. 883.”
The allegations of the bill in this case are amply sufficient to warrant equitable relief.
Therefore, the order appealed from is affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., arid Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scussel v. Kelly, 152 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…tion to the attitude of mind of the judge to the defendant in the inferior court, and are not [*777] frivolous or fanciful, they are sufficient to meet the command of the statute.” Similarly, in the case of Peacock v. Frederick, 1936, 125 Fla. 414, 170 So. 129, which was an original proceeding by J. E. Peacock for a writ of prohibition directed to the Honorable Herbert B. Frederick, as Judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County, Florida, the Supreme Court, in a Per Curiam opinion, sai…
Authorities Cited
- The Fed. Land Bank of Columbia v. Godwin, 107 Fla. 537 (Fla. 1931)
- Phifer v. Abbott, 73 Fla. 402 (Fla. 1917)
- City of Olando v. Equitable Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 45 Fla. 507 (Fla. 1903)
- Isleworth Grove Co. v. Cnty. of Orange, 79 Fla. 208 (Fla. 1920)
- The Fla. S. R.R. Co. v. Hill, 40 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1898)
- Raulerson v. Peeples, 79 Fla. 367 (Fla. 1920)
- The J. G. White Eng'g Corp. v. Peoples State Bank of Lakeland, 81 Fla. 35 (Fla. 1921)
- Brokaw v. McDougall, 20 Fla. 212 (Fla. 1883)
- Hewitt v. Punta Gorda State Bank, 108 Fla. 39 (Fla. 1933)
- S. Fla. Citrus Land Co. v. Walden, 59 Fla. 606 (Fla. 1910)