DONALD B. PAXTON, ET UX.,
v.
FOLEY LUMBER COMPANY
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 a lower court's decision to overrule a motion to dismiss a materialman's lien claim against an estate by the entireties. The court found the amended bill of complaint had equity and properly denied the motion to dismiss.
No, the lower court did not err in overruling the motion to dismiss. The amended bill of complaint contained equity.
“The amended bill was attacked by motion to dismiss on some seventeen separate grounds and when heard by the lower court, an order was made and entered overruling the motion to dismiss and requiring the defendants to answer on a day named in the order.”
Describes the procedural posture of the case and the lower court's action.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFoley Lumber Company filed an amended bill of complaint seeking to impress a materialman's lien against real estate held by a husband and wife as an e…
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 Materialman'S Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
The record here shows that the Foley Lumber Company filed its amended bill of complaint under Section 5360 C. G. L. for the purpose of impressing a materialman’s lien in the sum of $708.20 against real estate therein described held by the husband and wife as an estate by the entireties. The amended bill was attacked by motion to dismiss on some seventeen separate grounds and when heard by the lower court, an order was made and entered overruling the motion to dismiss and requiring the defendants to answer on a day named in the order.
From this interlocutory order an appeal has been perfected to this Court and the same is here for review. We have examined the amended bill of complaint in the light of the authorities cited in the brief of counsel for appellants and fail to find merit in the contention made. The amended bill of complaint contains equity and there was no error committed by the lower court in overruling the motion to dismiss same. See Allardice & Allardice, Inc., v. Weather-low, 98 Fla. 475, 124 So. 38.
The contention of counsel for the respective parties has been fully considered and we find no error in the record. The order appealed from is hereby affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Terrell, C. J., concurs in 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
-
N. Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1962)…vitably thwart the liberal policy of this court as stated in the two decisions last cited. Regarding the negligence of the hospital staff in misplacing the petitioner’s copy of the complaint, it was held in Stevens-Davis Co. v. Stock, 141 Fla. 714, 193 So. 745, that the trial court had not abused its discretion in granting a motion to vacate a default judgment where the failure to answer was due to “ * * * pure mistake and misunderstanding of counsel and their stenographer.” In support of its holding on t…
-
Crystal Lake Golf Course, Inc. v. Kalin, 252 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…such a procedure so as to permit determination of the controversy upon the merits. North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, supra [Fla. 143 So. 2d 849]; Coggin v. Barfield, 1942, 150 Fla. 551, 8 So. 2d 9; Stevens-Davis Co. v. Stock, 1940, 141 Fla. 714, 193 So. 745.” We recognize that we are dealing with a summary procedure as prescribed by Section 51.011, supra; but we equally recognize that we are dealing with the rights of parties to the use, enjoyment and possession of property which ought not to be summa…
-
Cnty. Nat'l Bank OF N. Miami Beach v. Sheridan, Inc., 403 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…al or secretarial error has also been held to constitute excusable neglect. Associated Medical Institutions, Inc. v. Imperatori, 338 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, supra; Stevens-Davis Co. v. Stock, 141 Fla. 714, 193 So. 745 (1940); Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Wright, 342 So. 2d 503 (Fla.1977). Of course, each of these cases turn upon its own complete set of facts, but we believe they adequately demonstrate the point that an unintentional mistake such as the one involved her…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Allardice & Allardice, Inc. v. Weatherlow, 98 Fla. 475 (Fla. 1929)