Crandall v. Owen
This text of 120 So. 319 (Crandall v. Owen) 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.
Opinion
The bill of complaint herein prays that a trust be decreed on certain lands in. Dade County, more specifically therein described and that an accounting be had between appellee as complainant below and appellants as defendants below. A demurrer to the bill was overruled and appeal was taken from that order.
The sole question raised by the demurrer is that the bill is multifarious. •
We think the bill was amenable to the assault made on it. It is shown that it involved two separate and independent transactions in which the parties were in part different and in which the subject matter was entirely different. This court has frequently expressed itself on the question of multifariousness. We do not see that further discussion of that subject would serve any useful purpose. Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 So. R. 31; Farrell v. Forest Investment Co., 73 Fla. 191, 74 So. R. 216; Craft v. *199 Craft, 74 Fla. 262, 76 So. R. 772; Arcadia Mercantile Co. v. Branning, 59 Fla. 428, 52 So. R. 588.
The decree below is therefore reversed.
Reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
120 So. 319, 97 Fla. 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crandall-v-owen-fla-1929.