Nye Et Vir. v. Bay View Estates Corp.

143 So. 597, 106 Fla. 707
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedSeptember 19, 1932
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 143 So. 597 (Nye Et Vir. v. Bay View Estates Corp.) 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
Nye Et Vir. v. Bay View Estates Corp., 143 So. 597, 106 Fla. 707 (Fla. 1932).

Opinion

Davis, J.

The appellant filed a creditor’s bill to set aside certain alleged fraudulent conveyances claimed to have been made by the defendant, Bay View Estates Corporation, to Tresulee Company and J. 0. Phillips. Answers were filed to the amended bill which put in issue some of the essential allegations which it was necessary for the complainant to establish in order to have a favorable decree. TFe time for taking testimony expired without any testimony having been taken or attempted to be taken to support the allegations of the complainant’s amended bill. On a final hearing on bill and answer, the Chancellor decreed- *708 the equities to be with the defendants and dismissed the suit. The appeal here is from the final decree of dismissal on bill and answer.

At the time the cause was set down for final hearing on the amended bill of complainant and defendant’s answers thereto, the state of the pleadings was such that the Court could not have made a decree for complainant in the absence of supporting testimony essential to overcome the denials by the answer of portions of the amended bill which the answers in contemplation of law denied. Under the circumstances the Chancellor’s dismissal of the amended bill was proper. Rigby v. Middlebrooks, 102 Fla. 148, 135 South. Rep. 563; Oakland Properties Corp. v. Hogan, 96 Fla. 40, 117 Sou. Rep. 845.

No other reversible errors have been made to appear, so the decree appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell, J., concur. Buford C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

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

Related

Rich v. Hunter
3 So. 2d 393 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1941)
Colonial Drug Co. v. Salas
185 So. 132 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
143 So. 597, 106 Fla. 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nye-et-vir-v-bay-view-estates-corp-fla-1932.