H. C. MATHER, R. S. MATHER AND J. R. MATHER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A COPARTNERSHIP UNDER THE NAME OF MATHER BROTHERS; MATHER-BARNES COMPANY, A CORPORATION; J. BROOKS MONROE, INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS AS J. BROOKS MONROE OPERATING COMPANY,
v.
FLORIDA NATIONAL BANK OF JACKSONVILLE, A CORPORATION UNDER THE FEDERAL BANK LAWS, AND GRACE M. CUSHING, AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF WORTHEN A. GOVE, DECEASED, AND FLORIDA NATIONAL BANK OF JACKSONVILLE, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF WORTHEN A. GOVE, DECEASED
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 the lower court's denial of defendants' motions to dismiss the bill of complaint and for a better bill of particulars. The court found the bill of complaint had equity and that no reversible error was committed.
No, the lower court did not err. The bill of complaint was found to have equity, and no reversible error was committed in denying the motion for a bill of particulars.
“the Court is of the opinion that the bill was not without equity and that the order of the court below, denying said motion to dismiss should be allowed to stand.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the equity of the bill of complaint.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendants appealed from two orders of the lower court: one denying their motion to dismiss the bill of complaint, and another denying their motio…
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 Particulars cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion made by defendants, appellants here, for a better bill of particulars, and an order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the bill of complaint which had been filed by the appellees. After due hearing and consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the bill was not without equity and that the order of the court below, denying said motion to dismiss should be allowed to stand. Nor was there any re*892versible error committed in denying the motion for bill of particulars.
As the Court cannot foresee what questions may be presented for decision by further pleadings and proof in this cause in the court -below, the Court deems it unnecessary at this time to discuss and rule upon the questions which have been so ably presented and argued, both orally and by briefs, by counsel for the respective parties, some of which questions may be materially changed or entirely eliminated when the answer is filed and the evidence is taken.
Taking all of the allegations of the amended’bill, which are well presented, as being true, which must be done on motion to dismiss, the bill is not without equity, and the court below should not be reversed for so holding.
The orders appealed from must therefore be and the same hereby are accordingly affirmed.
Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dreka v. Whitehair, 140 Fla. 802 (Fla. 1939)…hereby reversed, and the cause remanded for appropriate proceedings. See City of Lakeland v. Ray, 114 Fla. 603, 154 So. 324; Lathers Land Co. v. New York Life Insurance Co., 115 Fla. 639, 155 So. 723; Mather v. Florida National Bank of Jacksonville, 132 Fla. 891, 182 So. 301; Adams v. Sanford Growers’ Credit Corporation, 135 Fla. 513, 186 So. 239. It is so ordered. Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur. Buford, P., dissents. Justice Thomas not participating as authorized by Section…
-
Ngoc T. Phan v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. for First Franklin Mortg. Loan Tr. 2006-FF11, 198 So. 3d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…d, over the objection of defendant, in estab [*750] lishing such agency, to testify- to representations made by Sweetapple that he was such agent. This was error, as agency cannot be so proven.”); but see Rhodes v. Edward K. Tryon Co., 132 Fla. 880, 182 So. 301 (1938) (holding that an alleged agent is competent to prove-his or her own authority through testimony and parol evidence). However, that argument was never raised. See Hentze v. Denys, 88 So. 3d 307, 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). (recognizing the princi…