E. M. STRINGER
v.
J. E. DORTCH, ET UX.
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 reversed a lower court's dismissal of a partnership accounting case, finding that the bill of complaint sufficiently stated an equity for relief and that laches did not clearly appear on the face of the complaint.
No, the bill of complaint did not wholly fail to state an equity for relief, and laches did not clearly appear on the face of the bill to bar the claim.
“laches to bar relief as between the parties does not clearly appear by the bill”
Establishes that the court found no clear indication of laches in the initial complaint.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed a bill of complaint seeking an accounting from the appellee, his former partner in a bakery business. The lower court dismissed th…
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.
— The bill of complaint herein was dismissed on motion for want of equity for an accounting between appellant and appellee, J. E. Dortch, who had been partners in a bakery business. Complainant appealed. It would serve no useful purpose to quote or discuss at length the allegations, but it will suffice to state that laches to bar relief as between the parties does not clearly appear by the bill, and that the bill of complaint does not wholly fail to state an equity for appropriate relief upon essential proofs under issues made.
Decree dismissing bill of complaint for want of equity is reversed and the cause remanded for appropriate proceedings.
*568Reversed and remanded.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Terrell, C. J., concurs in the opinion and judgment.
Justices Buford and Thomas not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sodikoff v. Allen Parker Co., 202 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…use of a common law jury impracticable. See Jurisdictional Prerequisites for an Equitable Accounting, 6 U.Fla.L.Rev. 232. The statute of limitations is applicable to the individual allegations for an accounting. See Stringer v. Dortch, 136 Fla. 567, 188 So. 590 (1939); H.K.L. Realty Corporation v. Kirtley, Fla.1954, 74 So. 2d 876; Wall v. Johnson, Fla.1955, 78 So. 2d 371. It therefore was proper for the trial judge to use terminology relative to the statute and to test the appellants’ cause of action by th…