PINELLAS LUMBER COMPANY, ET AL.,
v.
A. E. CLEMENTS, ET AL.
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 dismissal of a materialman's lien claim because the complaint failed to allege that the materials were used to construct improvements on the specific lots for which the lien was sought.
No, the bill of complaint was fatally defective because it did not allege that the materials were furnished for improvements on the lots or that improvements were constructed on the lots.
“The bill of complaint did not allege that the material was furnished with which to construct improvements on any of the lots described in the bill of complaint, nor does it allege that improvements were constructed on either or all of said lots.”
This quote states the core factual deficiency in the plaintiff's complaint that led to the dismissal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePinellas Lumber Company sought to impress a materialman's lien on seven lots. The bill of complaint, however, did not state that the materials were fu…
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
On appeal we review order of Circuit Court dismissing bill of complaint which sought to impress a materialman's lien on seven certain lots.
The bill of complaint did not allege that the material was furnished with which to construct improvements on any of the lots described in the bill of complaint, nor does it allege that improvements were constructed on either or all of said lots. Therefore, it is unnecessary to discuss other questions presented.
The bill was fatally defective, and the order dismissing the same was without error.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Chapman, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Whitfield and Brown not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.