Arcadia Mercantile Co. v. Branning

Supreme Court of Florida

Arcadia Mercantile Co. v. Branning

52 So. 588, 52 So. 558, 52 So. 598, 59 Fla. 428

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJanuary 15, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 52 So. 588 (Arcadia Mercantile Co. v. Branning) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arcadia Mercantile Co. v. Branning, 52 So. 588, 52 So. 558, 52 So. 598, 59 Fla. 428 (Fla. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Whitfield, C. J.

The appellees, husband and wife, filed a bill in equity in the Circuit Court for DeSoto County against the appellant in which it is in substance alleged that Alpha was the owner in fee simple and in possession of certain described land, and for a valuable consideration moving from the wife conveyed the land to her and she took and holds possession; that the appellant here procured a judgment against J. H. Jenkins and Alpha Branning individually upon a service made only on J. B¡. Jenkins when no partnership relation existed between them; that the land was sold under an execution to the appellant. The prayer is for a cancellation of the judgment and deed of conveyance and for general relief. A demurrer to the bill was overruled and on appeal the sole contention is that the bill of complaint is multifarious.

A bill of complaint may be deemed to be multifarious when it states distinct, separate and independent equities that can better be adjudicated in more than one suit. Unless multifariousness clearly appears from the allega[430]*430tions of a bill of complaint it is not subject to a demurrer on that ground. See Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla., 480, 49 South. Rep. 31.

Where the parties complainant in an equity proceeding have a common interest in the subject of the litigation and have some relation to each other growing out of the common interest and the allegations are of a single distinct equity as to which a specific relief is prayed against a single defendant, the bill of complaint is not multifarious.

Whether the husband or the wife was the real owner of the land, the allegations of the bill of complaint made them both proper parties complainant and the relief sought against a sole defendant is based upon allegations of a distinct equity.

The interlocutory order appealed from is affirmed.

Siíacklefoéd and Cockeell, J. J., concur; Taylor, P. J., and ITocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Whitfield, C. J.

The appellees, husband and wife, filed a bill in equity in the Circuit Court for DeSoto County against the appellant in which it is in substance alleged that Alpha was the owner in fee simple and in possession of certain described land, and for a valuable consideration moving from the wife conveyed the land to her and she took and holds possession; that the appellant here procured a judgment against J. H. Jenkins and Alpha Branning individually upon a service made only on J. B¡. Jenkins when no partnership relation existed between them; that the land was sold under an execution to the appellant. The prayer is for a cancellation of the judgment and deed of conveyance and for general relief. A demurrer to the bill was overruled and on appeal the sole contention is that the bill of complaint is multifarious.

A bill of complaint may be deemed to be multifarious when it states distinct, separate and independent equities that can better be adjudicated in more than one suit. Unless multifariousness clearly appears from the allega[430]*430tions of a bill of complaint it is not subject to a demurrer on that ground. See Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla., 480, 49 South. Rep. 31.

Where the parties complainant in an equity proceeding have a common interest in the subject of the litigation and have some relation to each other growing out of the common interest and the allegations are of a single distinct equity as to which a specific relief is prayed against a single defendant, the bill of complaint is not multifarious.

Whether the husband or the wife was the real owner of the land, the allegations of the bill of complaint made them both proper parties complainant and the relief sought against a sole defendant is based upon allegations of a distinct equity.

The interlocutory order appealed from is affirmed.

Siíacklefoéd and Cockeell, J. J., concur; Taylor, P. J., and ITocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 So. 588, 52 So. 558, 52 So. 598, 59 Fla. 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arcadia-mercantile-co-v-branning-fla-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack