P. W. WILKINS AND COMPANY, A CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
v.
C. H. GROVES
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 reversed a lower court's dismissal of a bill in the nature of a bill of review, finding that the dismissal based on laches was improper because the bill sufficiently alleged equitable relief and showed no resulting injury or disadvantage to the defendant due to the delay.
No, the dismissal was improper. The bill sufficiently alleged grounds for equitable relief, and the delay in filing did not demonstrate any injury, embarrassment, or disadvantage to the defendant, which is the true test of laches.
“The bill is sufficient for equitable relief if the allegations are proven; it also shows that there has been no change in the status of the parties or the rem; nor are there any intervening equities.”
Establishes that the substance of the bill was adequate and lacked complicating factors.
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 a bill in the nature of a bill of review. The lower court dismissed this bill, relying solely on the ground of laches. The bill it…
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 Bill In The Nature Of A Bill Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final decree dismissing a bill in the nature of a bill of review for laches, the order of dismissal being placed squarely on that ground.
The bill is sufficient for equitable relief if the allegations are proven; it also shows that there has been no change in the status of the parties or the rem; nor are there any intervening equities. The true test of laches is whether or nor the delay has resulted in injury, embarassment or disadvantage to any person, particularly the defendant.
There being a complete absence of the showing of any such test here, the judgment so reversed on authority of Lightsey v. Lightsey, 150 Fla. 664, 8 So. (2nd) 399; Tampa Water Works Company v. Wood, 104 Fla. 306, 139 So. 800, and similar cases.
Reversed with directions to reinstate the bill and proceed accordingly.
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, CHAPMAN and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trueman Fertilizer Co. v. Allison, 81 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1955)…. Wade, 5 Cir., 1941, 117 F. 2d 154; Bethea v. Langford, Fla.1949, 45 So. 2d 496. In addition, no injury to appellees is shown to have -resulted from appellant’s delay. Lightsey v. Lightsey, 150 Fla. 664, 8 So. 2d 399; P. W. Wilkins & Co. v. Groves, 155 Fla. 279, 19 So. 2d 834; Jumper Creek Drainage Dist. v. State ex rel. Davis, 155 Fla. 669, 21 So. 2d 459. In reaching this conclusion, we have not overlooked the allegations of law and fact advanced to force a different conclusion, but we are convinced that…
-
Bethea v. Langford, 45 So.2d 496 (Fla. 1949)…laches exists is whether the delay has resulted in injury, embarrassment, or disadvantage to any person, and particularly to the person against whom the relief is sought. Lightsey v. Lightsey, 150 Fla. 664, 8 So. 2d 399; P.W. Wilkins Co. v. Groves, 155 Fla. 279, 19 So. 2d 834; Jumper Creek Drainage Dist. v. State, 155 Fla. 669, 21 So. 2d 459. We find no room for the application of the doctrine in this litigation. The position of the parties is precisely the same as it was on the day the defendant took tit…
Authorities Cited
- Lightsey v. Lightsey, 150 Fla. 664 (Fla. 1942)
- Tampa Water Works Co. v. Wood, 104 Fla. 306 (Fla. 1932)