Florida Bank & Trust Co. v. Morris

134 So. 617, 101 Fla. 1305
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMarch 28, 1931
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 134 So. 617 (Florida Bank & Trust Co. v. Morris) 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
Florida Bank & Trust Co. v. Morris, 134 So. 617, 101 Fla. 1305 (Fla. 1931).

Opinion

Terrell, J.-

This appeal is from an order overruling a general and special demurrer to and a motion to strike the amended bill of complaint, the cause in all respects being predicated on facts similar to those prevailing in William V. Knott, as Treasurer of the State of Florida, vs. S. D. Morris, as Successor Trustee, filed this date.

*1306 It is first' contended that the amended bill of complaint was an improper pleading because the matter and substance thereof should have been presented by supplemental bill rather than by an amended bill.

Parties and subject matter germane to and existing at the time of the filing of the original bill if omitted therefrom may on proper application be supplied by amendment. Parties and subject matter accruing subsequent to the filing of the original bill may be supplied by supplemental bill if germane to and they are material to the case. Matter which changes the rights of the parties cannot be included in a supplemental bill. Bloxham vs. Florida Cent. and P. R.R., 39 Fla. 243, 22 So. Rep. 697; Schwab vs. Schwab, 93 Md. 382, 49 Atl. Rep. 331, 52 L. R. A. 414. We have examined the amended bill complained of and no new parties or subject matter were added thereby and the allegations and prayer therein were germane to the original bill.

Other assignments of error complained of the nonjoinder of necessary parties, the inclusion in the bill of immaterial and irrelevant subject matter, and the attempt at statutory construction. These assignments have been examined and such error as they present is clearly shown to be harmless.

The order appealed from is accordingly affirmed.

Wi-iitfield, P.J., and Hutchison, Circuit Judge, concur. Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment. Davis, J.,. disqualified.

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

Related

Giglio v. Konold
214 N.E.2d 806 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1965)
Scherer v. Scherer
150 So. 2d 496 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)
State Ex Rel. Dickman v. Defenbacher
86 N.E.2d 5 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1949)
Hotel Management Co. v. Krickl
158 So. 118 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 So. 617, 101 Fla. 1305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-bank-trust-co-v-morris-fla-1931.