MARY R. ELLIOTT
v.
E. B. ELLIOTT CO., 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.
This appeal concerns whether the trial court erred in denying plaintiff's request for a receiver and defendant's motion to dismiss in an equity action. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's order, finding no error in either denial.
The trial court did not err in denying the application for a receiver, nor did it err in denying the motion to dismiss the bill of complaint. The bill of complaint contained sufficient equity to survive dismissal.
Plaintiff Mary R. Elliott filed a bill of complaint against E. B. Elliott Co. in the Circuit Court for Dade County. The defendant moved to dismiss the…
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 Appointment Of Receiver cases and more on FLexlaw
This, is an appeal from an order made by the Circuit Court for Dade County denying the motion of the defendant, E. B. Elliott Co., to dismiss the bill of complaint, but at the same time denying the application of the plaintiff in said bill of complaint contained for the appointment of a receiver for said defendant corporation. From this order the plaintiff in the court below took this appeal, assigning as error the denial of the application for the. appointment of a receiver. The defendant, E. B. Elliott Co., appellee here, cross-assigned as error that part of the order denying the motion to dismiss the bill.
' The case has been thoroughly briefed and argued, and after due consideration the conclusion of the Court is that the order appealed from should be affirmed in toto. It is quite clear that the court was without error in denying the application for a receiver, and the majority of the court are of the opinion that the bill of complaint is not entirely without equity and that this Court would not be justified in holding that the chancellor was in error in denying the motion to dismiss the bill.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J.-, and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E. B. Elliott Co. v. Elliott, 137 Fla. 456 (Fla. 1939)…Terrell, C. J. This is our second consideration of this case. See Elliott v. E. B. Elliott Co., et al., 127 Fla. 158, 172 So. 686. The trans'cript in the latter appeal is made part of the record in the instant appeal which is from a decree enlarging the time for taking testimony and denying a motion for final decree on the pleadings. Was the Chancellor guilty of an abuse of d…
-
Gallie v. Wainwright, 362 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1978)…e directed a return only on the original issues asserted by Gallie. Nonetheless, we have analyzed the alleged infirmity in the information and hold that it is not defective. . See Fla.App.R. 3.7(d); Langford v. King Lumber & Mfg. Co., 127 Fla. 111, 172 So. 686 (1937). . Ch. 69-29, Laws of Fla. . Under Article V, Section 2(a), Florida Constitution, we could treat the request for habeas corpus as a request for the appropriate form of relief. . The full text of the Rules of Executive Clemency is reported…
-
Campbell v. Pace, 369 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…onnection, see the following: Balias v. Lake Weir Light & Water Company, supra; Murphy v. Green, 102 Fla. 102, 135 So. 531 (1931); Langford [*416] v. King Lumber & Manufacturing Co., 123 Fla. 855, 167 So. 817 (1936); reargument granted 127 Fla. 111, 172 So. 686 (1937), affirmed 132 Fla. 143, 181 So. 395 (1938). We have examined the authorities cited by the appellant and find them not to be applicable, as they are distinguishable. Some of those authorities relate to a situation wherein a real estate broker…