JEREMIAH C. VAUGHN
v.
ILA M. STEWART, ET VIR.
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 trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss and related rulings in a quiet title action. The court held that the bill of complaint contained sufficient equitable allegations to withstand the motion to dismiss and that the appellant failed to demonstrate error in the trial court's other procedural rulings.
The bill of complaint contained sufficient equitable allegations and was legally sufficient to withstand the motion to dismiss. The trial court properly sustained the motion to strike and properly dismissed the counter claim, with the defendant given an opportunity to amend but choosing not to do so. All of the trial court's challenged orders were correct.
“The law requires a complainant to allege in his bill of complaint every fact clearly and definitely that is necessary to entitle him to the relief prayed for, and if he omits essential facts therefrom he must suffer the consequences of his so doing.”
Establishes the pleading standard for equity complaints and the consequences of omitting essential facts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 20, 1937, Ila M. Stewart and her husband filed a bill of complaint to quiet title to certain lands in Martin County, Florida, against multi…
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 Motion To Strike cases and more on FLexlaw
On January 20, 1937, lia M. Stewart and husband, J. R. Stewart, filed in the Circuit Court of Martin County, Florida, their bill of complaint to quiet title in and to certain lands therein described against many defendants. The suit was filed under Section 5012 C. G. L. The appellee here, a defendant below, Jeremiah C. Vaughn, individually and as administrator, on April 5, 1937, filed a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint, supra, on the grounds, viz.: (a) The bill of complaint fails to show a right of equitable relief as against the defendant; (b) that the bill of complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to show a cause of action.
On April 14, 1937, the lower court made and entered an order overruling and denying the motion to dismiss and on appeal here the said ruling is assigned as error. We have carefully examined the bill of complaint to which the motion was addressed and hold that it is legally sufficient to withstand the attack thereon as appears in the motion to dismiss. The law requires a complainant to allege in his bill of complaint every fact clearly and definitely that is necessary to entitle him to the relief prayed for, and if he omits essential facts therefrom he must suffer- the consequences of his so doing. See Godwin v. Phifer, 51 Fla. 441, 41 So. 597; Morrison v. Braddock, 100 Fla. 1152, 131 So. 124. If the *90bill of complaint contains equity, the motion to dismiss should be overruled or denied. The bill contains equity and the motion to dismiss was properly denied by the lower court. See Welborn v. Pierce, 75 Fla. 667, 78 So. 929; Brickell v. Trammell, 77 Fla. 544, 82 So. 221; Tibbetts v. Olson, 91 Fla. 824, 108 So. 679.
On the 14th day of May, 1937, a joint and several answer to the bill of complaint was filed by Jeremiah C. Vaughn, individually and as administrator. On the 18th day of May, 1937, the plaintiffs below filed in the lower court a motion to strike given portions of the said answer upon grounds therein set forth. The lower court sustained the motion to strike and the same on appeal is argued as error in this Court. We fail to find merit in this assignment.
The record shows a counter claim incorporated in and made a part of the answer of the defendant below. A motion to dismiss the counter claim was sustained by the lower court on July 21, 1937, but in the same order the defendant below was permitted or allowed additional time in which to amend the counter claim, but the defendant declined so to do but perfected his appeal and assigns as error the aforesaid order. We fail to find merit in the assignment.
The rule is well settled that in equity, as well as at law, every presumption is in favor of the correctness- of the i tilings of the trial judge and one who complains of error must make the same tó appear. The appellee on this record has failed to meet that burden. See Britt v. State, 88 Fla. 482, 102 So. 761; State v. Merritt, 86 Fla. 164, 99 So. 230; Hoodless v. Jernigan, 51 Fla. 211, 41 So. 194; Clements v. State, 51 Fla. 6, 40 So. 432; Stover v. Stovall, 103 Fla. 284, 137 So. 249.
The orders appealed from are hereby affirmed.
*91Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur.
Buford, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Thomas, J., disqualified.
Terrell, C. J., 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
-
Safford v. McCASKILL, 157 Fla. 133 (Fla. 1946)…and set out in his bill of complaint every fa'ct clearly and definitely that is necessary to entitle him to the relief sought and if he fails or omits essential facts therefrom, he must suffer the consequences of his so doing. See Vaughn v. Stewart, 140 Fla. 88, 191 So. 693. Likewise the method of testing the legal sufficiency of a bill of complaint is by motion to dismiss. The case of Flanagan v. Herrett, 130 Fla. 531, 178 So. 147, [*138] involved the factual situation viz: Flanagan obtained' a divorce f…
-
Katz v. Ira G. Katz, 159 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…e arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Picchi v. Picchi, Fla.1958, 100 So. 2d 627; Bennett v. Bennett, Fla.App.1962, 146 So. 2d 588. It was incumbent upon the parties urging error to demonstrate same. See: Vaughn v. Stewart, 140 Fla. 88, 191 So. 693; Lynch v. Coppola, Fla.App.1961, 129 So. 2d 183. No error is found in the chancellor’s finding that the husband was a resident of Florida and granting him a final decree of divorce and in rejecting the defenses of condonation and laches…
-
Lund v. Lund, 161 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…and correctness, Picchi v. Picchi, Fla.1958, 100 So. 2d 627; Bennett v. Bennett, Fla.App.1962, 146 So. 2d 588; Katz v. Katz, Fla.App.1964, 159 So. 2d 241, and it is incumbent upon the party urging error to demonstrate same. Vaughn v. Stewart, 1939, 140 Fla. 88, 191 So. 693; Lynch v. Coppola, Fla.App.1961, 129 So. 2d 183. The first two questions posed are easily answered in the negative because there is ample substantial evidence in the record to sustain the chancellor’s findings and conclusions, and it h…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Godwin v. Phifer, 51 Fla. 441 (Fla. 1906)
- Brickell v. Park Trammel, 77 Fla. 544 (Fla. 1919)
- Johnson C. Tibbetts v. Atwell Olson, 91 Fla. 824 (Fla. 1926)
- Stover v. Stovall, 103 Fla. 284 (Fla. 1931)
- State v. Merritt, 86 Fla. 164 (Fla. 1923)
- Hoodless v. Jernigan, 51 Fla. 211 (Fla. 1906)
- Clements v. State, 51 Fla. 6 (Fla. 1906)
- Britt v. State, 88 Fla. 482 (Fla. 1924)
- Welborn v. Pierce, 75 Fla. 667 (Fla. 1918)
- Morrison v. N. E. Braddock of Seminole Cnty., 100 Fla. 1152 (Fla. 1930)