J. WADE HAMPTON, APPELLANT,
v.
VANTON CORPORATION, LOUIS A. VAN DYK, ET UX., ELLA JOE STOLLBERG, A SINGLE WOMAN, AND JOSEPHINE READ, A SINGLE WOMAN, APPELLEES
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 complaint seeking a receiver and accounting for a corporation. The court found the complaint lacked equity and was not controlled by the precedent cited by the appellant.
No, the amended bill of complaint did not state a cause of action with sufficient equity to withstand a motion to dismiss.
“This case is here on appeal from an order dismissing an amended bill of complaint on the 17th day of May, 1940, by the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida, for want of equity.”
Establishes the procedural posture and the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed an amended bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of Broward County seeking the appointment of a receiver for Vanton Corporation, …
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 Appointment Of Receiver cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is here on appeal from an order dismissing an amended bill of complaint on the 17th day of May, 1940, by the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida, for want of equity. The prayer of the amended bill seeks the appointment of a receiver for the Vanton Corporation and an accounting and also a prayer for general relief.
It is asserted by counsel for the appellant that the case at bar is controlled by Wofford v. Wofford, 129 Fla. 445, 176 So. 499, and we have carefully considered the allegations of the amended bill of complaint in light of Wofford v. Wofford. We are unable to agree with the contention of counsel that this case is controlling, but it is our view that the case at bar is ruled by Tampa Water Works Co. v. Wood, 97 Fla. 493, 121 So. 789.
The case at bar has been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record and briefs and oral argument has been heard by the Court by counsel for the respective parties, *148and the Court having considered and inspected the record and studied the briefs and examined the authorities cited and being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it appears to the Court that there is no error in the order or decree appealed from and it is therefore ordered and adjudged by the Court that the final decree of dismissal by the Circuit Court heretofore entered be and the same is hereby affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, P. J., concur.
Buford, J., concurs in opinion and judgrpent.
Justices Brown and Ti-iomas 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
Authorities Cited
- Tampa Water Works Co. v. Wood, 97 Fla. 493 (Fla. 1929)
- Wofford v. Wofford, 129 Fla. 445 (Fla. 1937)