Lesley v. Parker

81 So. 272, 77 Fla. 205, 1919 Fla. LEXIS 631
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedFebruary 21, 1919
StatusPublished

This text of 81 So. 272 (Lesley v. Parker) 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
Lesley v. Parker, 81 So. 272, 77 Fla. 205, 1919 Fla. LEXIS 631 (Fla. 1919).

Opinion

Per Curiam

— The tendency of the present day pleading and practice is towards simplicity. The vital and indispensable parts of a bill are the stating part and prayer for relief. 10 R. C. L. 411; Comstock v. Herron, 45 Fed. 661.

Rule 18 Circuit Court Equity Actions expressly renders the confederacy clause, the charging part and the jurisdictional clause unimportant to be alleged. The interrogatory part of the bill has become useless because of the practice of waiving sworn answers and the right to obtain evidence from the defendant by making him a witness at a hearing or procuring his depositions.

[206]*206That the defendant shall answer the bill fully when he is brought into court by subpoena pertains to the very nature and purpose of the bill. Theoretically the court inspects the bill and directs subpoena to be issued. That writ commands the defendant to appear and answer.

The bill filed in this case contained in substance a general interrogatory coupled with the prayer for process, which is sufficient to save it from the objection made by appellants, even if the interrogatory part of the bill was important.

Affirmed.

All concur.

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

Related

Hunton v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc.
45 F. 661 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 So. 272, 77 Fla. 205, 1919 Fla. LEXIS 631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lesley-v-parker-fla-1919.