COLONIAL DRUG COMPANY
v.
Z. SALAS, JOSE S. FRANCO, AND JOSE B. PACHECO
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.
Colonial Drug Company appealed a circuit court's dismissal of its bill of complaint against Z. Salas, Jose S. Franco, and Jose B. Pacheco. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the defendants' responsive pleadings adequately answered the material allegations, warranting dismissal on final hearing.
The court held that there was no error in the dismissal because the defendants' joint and several answer was responsive to the material allegations of the bill of complaint, and dismissal was therefore proper at final hearing.
“the allegations of the joint and several answers filed by the defendants are responsive to the material allegations of the bill and in this state of the pleadings there was no error on the part of the lower court in entering an order dismissing the cause”
The court's core holding that responsive pleadings adequately addressing material allegations justify dismissal on final hearing
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceColonial Drug Company filed a bill of complaint on October 17, 1935, seeking appointment of a receiver, a full accounting, and annulment of a February…
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 Answer cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is here on appeal from an order dated February 16, 1937, entered by the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida, dismissing on final hearing the said bill of complaint. The bill of complaint was instituted on October 17, 1935, and consisted of several pages and the prayer of the bill was broad in that it sought the *138appointment, of a receiver, a full and complete accounting as between the'parties, the annulment of a final,decree previously entered by the same Court dated February 3, 1932, based on stipulation of counsel, and other relief.
The bill of complaint was attacked by motion to dismiss and an order was entered sustaining the motion as to the defendant, John G. Graham, but denied as to the other defendants. On the 13th day of April, 1936, Z. Salas, B. Pacheco and J. S. Franco filed a joint and several answer in which each allegation of the bill of complaint was either admitted or denied and after the expiration of the time allowed by the rules of the court for the taking of testimony the cause was heard in the lower court on final hearing on the bill of complaint and the joint and several answer of the defendants, and an order of dismissal was entered and an .appeal therefrom has been perfected to this Court, and said order of dismissal assigned as error here.
We have carefully examined the allegations of the Bill of complaint and the answer thereto and find that the allegations,of the joint and several answers filed by the defendants are responsive to the material allegations of the bill and in this state of the pleadings there was no error on the part of the lower court in entering an order dismissing the cause. The case at bar is ruled by Ropes v. Jenerson, 45 Fla. 556, 34 So. 955, 110 Am. St. Rep. 79; Seaboard Oil Co. v. Donovan, 99 Fla. 1296, 128 So. 821; Rigby v. Middlebrooks, 102 Fla. 148, 135 So. 563; Nye v. Bay View Estates Corp., 106 Fla. 707, 143 So. 597. We have examined the briefs filed by counsel and heard argument at the bar of this Court and we are of the opinion that the order or decree appealed from is without error and should be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown,.J., concur.
*139Terrell, C. J., and Buford, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Thomas, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The Seaboard Oil Co. v. Donovan, 99 Fla. 1296 (Fla. 1930)
- Rigby v. Middlebrooks, 102 Fla. 148 (Fla. 1931)
- Ropes v. Jenerson, 45 Fla. 556 (Fla. 1903)
- Nye v. Bay View Ests. Corp., 106 Fla. 707 (Fla. 1932)