Nelson v. Tropical Land Co.

Supreme Court of Florida

Nelson v. Tropical Land Co.

111 So. 512, 93 Fla. 203

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJanuary 31, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 111 So. 512 (Nelson v. Tropical Land Co.) 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

Nelson v. Tropical Land Co., 111 So. 512, 93 Fla. 203 (Fla. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Nelson, the appellant, brought suit in Chancery against the appellees Holz, Christie and Tropical Land Company for receiver, accounting and injunction. Appellees here, defendants below, filed their answer admitting some of the allegations of the bill, and denying others. In this state of the case appellee, Florida and *204 Cape Cod Realty Company, Inc., filed its petition to intervene and be made a party defendant, because (1) it had advanced money to pay certain obligations for abstracts and taxes, and (2) it held by assignment a certain contract made by Turner and TIolz for the sale and purchase of certain lands. It appearing that the purpose of the intervention as to this contract is to have it reformed and made the contract of the Tropical Land Company, it having been executed by Holz personally.

A motion to strike the petition to intervene was denied and a demurrer to said petition was overruled. Appeal is prosecuted from both orders.

Appellant contends here that this is a suit in personam and not in rem, and that one cannot' be made a party defendant in such suit over the objection of the complainant; that no trust relation is shown to exist between petitioner and the parties to the suit, consequently the petition should have 'been denied and that sufficient interest bn the part of the petitioner in the subject-matter in litigation is not shown to support its petition for intervention.

As an abstract proposition of law appellant’s contention is well supported; but these rules, like all others, are controlled by the facts arising in the particular case. We have examined the record carefully in. the light of the questions raised and as against the discretion and ruling of the Chancellor in allowing intervention it is not clearly made to appear that error was committed.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.

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

Per Curiam.

Nelson, the appellant, brought suit in Chancery against the appellees Holz, Christie and Tropical Land Company for receiver, accounting and injunction. Appellees here, defendants below, filed their answer admitting some of the allegations of the bill, and denying others. In this state of the case appellee, Florida and *204 Cape Cod Realty Company, Inc., filed its petition to intervene and be made a party defendant, because (1) it had advanced money to pay certain obligations for abstracts and taxes, and (2) it held by assignment a certain contract made by Turner and TIolz for the sale and purchase of certain lands. It appearing that the purpose of the intervention as to this contract is to have it reformed and made the contract of the Tropical Land Company, it having been executed by Holz personally.

A motion to strike the petition to intervene was denied and a demurrer to said petition was overruled. Appeal is prosecuted from both orders.

Appellant contends here that this is a suit in personam and not in rem, and that one cannot' be made a party defendant in such suit over the objection of the complainant; that no trust relation is shown to exist between petitioner and the parties to the suit, consequently the petition should have 'been denied and that sufficient interest bn the part of the petitioner in the subject-matter in litigation is not shown to support its petition for intervention.

As an abstract proposition of law appellant’s contention is well supported; but these rules, like all others, are controlled by the facts arising in the particular case. We have examined the record carefully in. the light of the questions raised and as against the discretion and ruling of the Chancellor in allowing intervention it is not clearly made to appear that error was committed.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 So. 512, 93 Fla. 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-tropical-land-co-fla-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack