LILA M. LLOYD, APPELLANT,
v.
THE COOPER CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, OF THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE
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 court reversed a dismissal of a complaint and the denial of a motion to vacate that dismissal. The case involved a married woman's property levied to satisfy a debt, where the validity of the underlying note was questioned under Florida law.
Yes, there was error in dismissing the second amended bill of complaint because it did not wholly fail to state an equity for relief. There was also error in refusing to vacate the dismissal, even if the time limit had expired, due to the circumstances presented.
“A married woman’s notes under the constitution and laws of Florida are void, and affords no basis for a common law suit.”
Establishes the legal principle regarding the validity of married women's notes in Florida.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe complainant sought to cancel a sheriff's deed to real estate claimed as a married woman's separate property. This property was levied to satisfy a…
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.
This appeal is from a decree dismissing a second amended bill of complaint and from an order denying a motion to vacate the dismissal. A demurrer had been sustained on April 4, 1929, to the second amended bill of complaint and “the complainant allowed five days in which to file a third amended bill of complaint, and the defendant is allowed ...... days to plead or demur” thereto. The relief sought was the cancellation of a sheriff’s deed to real estate claimed to be the separate property of a married woman and levied upon to satisfy a judgment at law obtained in the civil court of record for Hillsborough county against the married woman and her husband upon a promissory note executed by the husband and w,ife in the State of Ohio.
“A married woman’s notes under the constitution and laws of Florida are void, and affords no basis for a common law suit.” Va.-Car. Chem. Co. v. Fisher et al., 58 Fla. 377, 50 So. 504.
A contract made and valid in one State may not be enforced in another State when it is contrary to the law and public policy of the latter State. See Union Trust Co. v. Grosman, 245 U. S. 412.
It appears that about 10:30 a.m. April 10, 1929, a third amended bill of complaint was filed and about an hour later an order was filed dismissing the cause for failure to file an amended bill within the time allowed. It also appears that the files in the cause were in the possession *535of defendant’s counsel for a day or two, that complainant’s counsel was engrossed in the trial of other causes, and that a Sunday intervened during the five days allowed for filing a third amended bill.
• As the second amended bill of complaint does not wholly fail to state an equity for appropriate relief, there was error in dismissing it; and there was also error in refusing to vacate the dismissal under the circumstances shown even if the five days allowed had expired before an amended bill of complaint was filed.
Reversed for appropriate proceedings..
Terrell, and Davis, J.J., concur.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Huey T. Young v. Sands, Inc., 122 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…f a gambling transaction for the purpose of being wagered is void. A gambling obligation although valid in the state where created can not be enforced in Florida because it is contrary to public policy. See Lloyd v. Cooper Corporation, 101 Fla. 533, 134 So. 562; Union Trust Co. v. Grosman, 245 U.S. 412, 38 S.Ct. 147, 62 L.Ed. 368.. The plaintiff introduced the check into evidence and presented the deposition of the credit manager of the Sands Hotel of Las Vegas, Nevada, which was in the form of answers to…
-
The Kellogg-Citizens Nat'l Bank of Green Bay v. Felton, 145 Fla. 68 (Fla. 1940)…Florida, there being no basis shown for subjecting in equity the married woman’s separate property in this State to the payment on such notes, under Sections 1 and 2, Article XI, of the Florida Constitution. See Lloyd v. Cooper Corp., 101 Fla. 533, 134 So. 562. “When the lex loci contractus and the lex fori as to conflicting rights acquired in each, come in direct collision, the comity of nations must yield to the positive law of the land.” 2 Kent’s Comm. 461. See Walters v. Whitlock, 9 Fla. 86, text p.…1 / 4
-
Trafalgar Developers, Ltd. v. Geneva Inv. Ltd., 285 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1973)…med (lex loci contractus) j1 however, public policy may preclude enforcement of the contract valid under the laws of the place of lex loci contractus where the same is contrary to the law and public policy of Florida. In Lloyd v. Cooper Corporation, 134 So. 562 (Fla.1931), this Court held that a contract made and valid in one state may not be enforced in another state when it is contrary to the law and public policy of the latter state. This Court has heldithat comity “[D]oes not require a court to enforce…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Union Tr. Co. v. Grosman, 245 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1918)
- The Virginia-Carolina Chem. Co. v. Fisher, 58 Fla. 377 (Fla. 1909)