LOTTIE A. MAHIN
v.
D. POWELL MAHIN
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 case concerns the sufficiency of denials in a defendant's answer to a bill of complaint. The Florida Supreme Court reversed an order that struck portions of the answer, holding that denials referring to specific folios of the bill of complaint were sufficient under the 1931 Florida Practice Act.
The court held that denials referring to specific folios of the bill of complaint are sufficient denials under Section 34 of the 1931 Florida Practice Act and specifically deny those material allegations contained in the respective divisions, thereby presenting the issue of the truth of those allegations and requiring proof of each denied allegation.
“We hold that the denials contained in the paragraphs of the answer where referred to were sufficient denials under the provisions of Section 34 of the 1931 Florida Practice Act and that these denials specifically deny those allegations of the bill of complaint respectively contained in the respective divisions of the bill of complaint referred to.”
The court's main holding establishing the sufficiency of folio-referenced denials under the Practice Act.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant filed an answer to an amended bill of complaint containing multiple paragraphs that denied allegations by reference to specific folios (…
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.
In this case the appeal is from an order striking portions of the answer. Motion was granted to strike paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 12 and 16 of the answer.
Paragraph 2 of the answer was: “Defendant denies each and every and all and singular the allegations set out in folio 2 of the amended bill of complaint.”
Paragraphs 3, 4, 7, 8, 12 and 16 were identical with paragraph. 2 except that each referred to a like plea folio of the amended bill of complaint.
“Folio” as used in the pleading, refers to a division in a document for the purpose of measurement or .reference. See New Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
The divisions of the bill of complaint.
We hold that the denials contained in the paragraphs of the answer where referred to were sufficient denials under the provisions of Section 34 of the 1931 Florida Practice Act and that these denials specifically deny those allegations of the bill of complaint respectively contained in the respective divisions of the bill of complaint referred to.
The allegations of the bill of complaint as contained in each of the divisions referred to were material allegations and the denial of those allegations specifically by the de- ■ fendant in the answer was sufficient to present the issue of the truth of the allegations so contained in the bill of complaint and were sufficient to require proof of each of such allegations so denied.
It follows, therefore, that the order appealed from must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views herein expressed.
So ordered.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Dep't OF Gen. Servs. v. Willis, 344 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…nces are shown by the complaint which would bring the case “under some recognized head of equity jurisdiction warranting the relief prayed for.” Prohibition is therefore appropriate here, as it was in State ex rel. Smith v. Gomez, 131 Fla. 385, 398, 179 So. 651, 657 (1938), to stop further proceedings by the chancellor. In Gomez, the respondent circuit judges were held to have exceeded their power by entertaining a bill for restraining order and other relief against the Comptroller’s liquidator of an insol…
-
Aikens v. City of Rockledge, 132 Fla. 874 (Fla. 1938)…g the first three paragraphs of the amended bill of complaint, .were stricken upon motion. It is contended therefore that the first question for the court to consider is the sufficiency of these denials. Appellants cite Mahin v. Mahin, 131 Fla. 546, 179 So. 651, to the effect that such denials which deny allegations set out in a specified “folio” of the bill are sufficient. This is true, but in the case under consideration the first three paragraphs of the bill of complaint allege facts which are shown by…