A. B. ARCHIBALD AND MADEIRA HOLDING COMPANY
v.
G. B. CURRY, 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 affirmed an order denying a motion to dismiss a bill of complaint. The bill sought to establish that the legal title holder possessed property in trust for a judgment debtor.
Yes, the bill of complaint contained sufficient grounds for equitable relief, and therefore the order denying the motion to dismiss was correctly affirmed.
“Under our practice, as established by the 1931 Chancery Practice Act, motion to dismiss serves the purpose of a general demurrer and by it is tested the sufficiency of the allegations of the bill and it admits the allegations of the bill which are well pleaded for that purpose only.”
Explains the function of a motion to dismiss under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants sought to dismiss a bill of complaint that aimed to have property title declared held in trust for the benefit of a judgment debtor. The lo…
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.
Appeal brings for review order denying motion to dismiss bill of complaint by which it is sought to have adjudication that title to certain property is held by the holder of the legal title in trust for the use and benefit of the defendant judgment debtor.
Under our practice, as established by the 1931 Chancery Practice Act, motion' to dismiss serves the purpose of a general demurrer and by it is tested the sufficiency of the allegations of the bill and it admits the allegations of the bill which are well pleaded for that purpose only. Such motion to dismiss should be denied if the bill of complaint contains any grounds for equitable relief. See Wright v. Barnard, 233 Fed. 329; Hyams v. Old Dominion Co., 204 Fed. 681; Wilson v. American Ice Co., 206 Fed. 736; Alexander v. Fidelity Trust Co., 215 Fed. 791; Destructor Co. v. Atlanta, 219 Fed. 996; and Clapp v. Coral Gables Corp., 98 Fla. 1230, 125 So. 369; Walker v. Close, 98 Fla. 1103, 125 So. 521 ; Stokes v. Victory Land Co., 99 Fla. 795, 128 So. 408.
The bill is not wholly without equity and, therefore, the order should be affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Thomas, J., concur.
Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman 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
-
Lykes Bros. v. Bd of Com'rs of Everglades Dr. Dist, 41 So.2d 898 (Fla. 1949)…material allegations of his bill by a preponderance of the evidence. The motion admits the well-pleaded allegations of the bill for that purpose only and should be denied if the complaint states any grounds for equitable relief. Archibald v. Curry, 140 Fla. 189, 191 So. 308. On an appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss a bill of complaint, the basic question, therefore, is whether the bill contains any equity as against the party who files the motion; and if it does the motion should be denied a…
-
Fla. New Deal Co. v. Crane Co., 142 Fla. 471 (Fla. 1940)…s held that a motion to dismiss serves the purpose of a general demurrer and such motion tests the sufficiency of the allegations of the bill and admits the allegations thereof which are well pleaded for the purpose intended. See Archibald v. Curry, 140 Fla. 189, 191 So. 308. A motion to dismiss should be denied if the bill contains any ground for equitable relief. We have carefully examined the sufficiency of the second amended bill called into question by the motion to dismiss and hold that the same conta…
-
Louella P. Hill v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 193 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…red was found dead in a latrine at the back of his residence with a bullet through his head and his pistol by his feet” (text 191 So. 307-308). The Supreme Court, upon an appeal by the beneficiary, affirmed the lower Court, holding as follows: (text 191 So. 308) “The plaintiff in error relies on Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Johnson, 122 Fla. 567, 166 So. 442, for reversal. The burden was first on the [*645] plaintiff to prove that the deceased came to his death by accidental means, this be…
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
- Stokes v. Victory Land Co., 99 Fla. 795 (Fla. 1930)
- Walker v. Close, 98 Fla. 1103 (Fla. 1929)
- Blue Heron Land Co. v. Brown, 98 Fla. 1238 (Fla. 1930)
- Chambers Brown Clapp v. Coral Gables Corp., 98 Fla. 1230 (Fla. 1930)