C. E. HUMPHREYS, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF A. LEE HUMPHREYS, DECEASED, ALICE H. HUMPHREYS CATHERINE HUMPHREYS, AND ALICE H. HUMPHREYS AS GUARDIAN OF MARGARET HUMPHREYS AND A. LEE HUMPHREYS, JR., MINORS, AND J. M. HEARN, APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES SMITH, APPELLEE
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 denial of a motion to dismiss a bill of complaint, holding that the chancellor did not abuse discretion by granting the complainant additional time to amend.
No, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to dismiss and granting an extension for the complainant to amend the bill of complaint.
“The matter of allowing amendments to and dismissing bills of complaint is one solely in the discretion of the Chancellor and his rulings thereon will not be disturbed so long as his discretion is not abused.”
Establishes the standard of review for the chancellor's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a previous reversal and remand, the defendants moved to dismiss the bill of complaint for failure to file an amendment by the rule day. The …
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 Chancellor'S Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
— On appeal from a decree overruling a demurrer this cause was reversed with the directions that complainant be allowed to amend his bill of complaint. The mandate of this Court went down October 25, 1930.,
On November 22,1930, defendants moved to dismiss the bill of complaint for failure to file amendment thereto on or before the rule day in November 1930, the same being the third day thereof. That motion was denied and this appeal is from that decree.
The matter of allowing amendments to and dismissing bills of complaint is one solely in the discretion of the Chancellor and his rulings thereon will not be disturbed so long as his discretion is not abused. The motion to dismiss in this cause was filed less than a month after the mandate of this Court went down. At the time it was considered, November 28, 1930, the complainant was present asking that time to amend be extended to December Rules. This request was granted. It was not an abuse of discretion.
No other question being raised the motion to dismiss *669is granted by authority of Norfleet Holding Company vs. Price, .... Fla ...., 132 So. 643.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.