THE NELSON BULLOCK COMPANY
v.
SOUTH DOWN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
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 held that a purchaser pendente lite may intervene in a suit to quiet title under the 1931 Chancery Act, reversing the prior rule established in earlier cases that prohibited such intervention. The court affirmed the lower court's order permitting South Down Development Company to intervene in Nelson-Bullock Company's suit to quiet title to real property.
A purchaser pendente lite may intervene in a suit to quiet title, subject to the discretion of the Chancellor, before final decree is entered. The 1931 Chancery Act modified the prior rule that prohibited such intervention by providing that anyone claiming an interest in the litigation may be permitted to assert his right by intervention at any time during the progress of the case.
“Anyone claiming an interest in the litigation may at any time be permitted to assert his right by intervention, but the intervention shall be in subordination to, and in recognition of, the propriety of the main proceeding, unless otherwise ordered by the court in its discretion.”
Section Nine of the 1931 Chancery Act, establishing the new rule permitting intervention by pendente lite purchasers subject to judicial discretion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNelson-Bullock Company filed a suit to quiet title to real estate in St. Johns County on February 11, 1936, with notice of lis pendens. On March 26, 1…
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 Purchaser Pendente Lite cases and more on FLexlaw
On February 11, 1936, Appellant, Nelson-Bullock Compan}', a corporation, claiming the ownership 'of certain real estate in St. Johns County, instituted a suit to quiet title thereon pursuant to Sections 5010 to 5019, Compiled General Laws of 1927, making the Southern Real Estate Corporation and' others, parties defendant. Coeval with filing the bill of complaint, there was also filed notice of Us pendens by the complainant.
On March 26, 1936, an action at law was instituted against Southern Real Estate Corporation resulting in a judgment in favor of Charles A. Powers, the plaintiff, dated April 11, 1936. Execution was issued and the lands were sold to Charles A. Powers and wife, who in turn conveyed their interest so acquired to Appellee, South Down Development Company, the lands so conveyed being the identical ones described in the bill to quiet title and the notice of lis pendens.
On July 20, 1936, South Down Development Company petitioned the Court to be permitted to intervene in the suit to quiet title. Nelson-Bullock Company moved to dismiss the petition to intervene, which was denied, but instead .an order was entered October 31, 1936, permitting- South Down Development Company to intervene. Nelson-Bul*497lock Company prosecuted this appeal from the order denying its motion to dismiss the petition to intervene and that permitting South Down Development Company to intervene.
The sole question we are called on to answer is whether or not South Down Development Company, a purchaser ■pendente lite, may be permitted to intervene in a suit, to quiet title brought under Sections 5010 to 5019, Compiled General Laws of 1927, notice of lis pendens having been filed at the time suit to quiet title was brought. .
It appears admitted that prior to the enactment of the 1931 Chancery Act, this question was answered in the negative by Peninsular Naval Stores Co. v. Cox, et al., 57 Fla. 505, 49 So. 191, and Intermediary Finance Corporation v. McKay, et al., 93 Fla. 101, 111 So. 531; and other cases of similar import, but it is contended by Appellee that the rule was modified by the latter Act to permit intervention in cases of this kind by the Chancellor in his discretion at any time before final decree is entered.
Sections 5010 to 5019, Compiled General Laws of 1927, under which the main cause was brought, were embraced in Chapter 11383, Acts of 1925, .which was enacted after the cases relied on by Appellant for reversal were' litigated. The 1931 Chancery Act was also enacted after the said cases were litigated, Section Nine, the pertinent part, being as follows:
“Anyone claiming an interest in the litigation may at any time -be permitted to assert his right by intervention, but the intervention shall be in subordination to, and in recognition of, the propriety of the main proceeding, unless otherwise ordered by the court in its discretion.”
From this, it would seem that subject to the discretion ,of the Chancellor intervention in equity causes may be per*498mitted at any time during the progress of the case. In this case, South Down Development Company asserts a superior title to Appellant and was permitted to intervene for the purpose of filing its answer to determine this question. We find no error in the decree appealed from. Such is the rule of the Federal Courts. Mellen v. Moline Malleable Iron Works, 131 U. S. 352, 9 Sup. Ct. 781, 33 L. Ed. 178; Eyster v. Gaff, 91 U. S. 521, 23 L. Ed. 403; Dutcher v. Haines City Estates, 26 Fed (2d) 669.
It follows that the judgment below must be and is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Buford, 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
-
Switow v. Sher, 136 Fla. 284 (Fla. 1939)…n conformity with Section 9, supra, so that the Trustee might assert his title to the promissory note -as against the title alleged in the bill of complaint to be in the plaintiff. . In the case, of Nelson Bullock Co. v. South Down Development Co., 132 Fla. 495, 181 Sou. 365, we held: [*295] “The sole question we are called on to answer is whether or not South Down Development Company, a purchaser pendente liie, may be'permitted to intervene in a suit to quiet title brought under sections 5010 to 5019, Com…
-
Andresix Corp. v. Peoples Downtown Nat'l Bank, 419 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…n v. McKay, 93 Fla. 101, 111 So. 531 (1927); Peninsular Naval Stores Company v. Cox, 57 Fla. 505, 49 So. 191 (1909). See O’Bryan v. Dr. P. Phillips & Sons, Inc., 123 Fla. 302, 166 So. 820 (1936). Cf. Nelson Bullock Co. v. South Down Development Co., 132 Fla. 495, 181 So. 365 (Fla.1938); Freligh v. Maurer, 111 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959); Dutcher v. Haines City Estates, Inc., 26 F. 2d 669 (5th Cir. 1928) (intervention appropriate where lis pendens filed by party with inchoate claim to interest in property,…
-
In the Interest of J. S. v. Seekell, 404 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…fected by the outcome of the case. A motion to intervene involves the exercise of the trial court’s discretion, and the trial court will not be reversed in the absence of an abuse of that discretion. Nelson Bullock Co. v. Southdown Development Co., 132 Fla. 495, 181 So. 365 (1938); Wong v. Wersebe, 365 So. 2d 429 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Wogisch v. Tiger, 193 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966). See also The Florida Bar, Florida Civil Practice Before Trial § 11.9 (1975). Because as grandmother Mrs. Hamel has no right…
Authorities Cited
- Eyster v. Gaff, 91 U.S. 521 (U.S. 1875)
- Mellen v. Moline Malleable Iron Works, 131 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1889)
- The Peninsular Naval Stores Co. v. Cox, 57 Fla. 505 (Fla. 1909)
- Intermediary Fin. Corp. v. McKay, 93 Fla. 101 (Fla. 1927)