Spofford v. City National Building, Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida

Spofford v. City National Building, Inc.

142 So. 898, 106 Fla. 160

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJuly 12, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 142 So. 898 (Spofford v. City National Building, Inc.) 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

Spofford v. City National Building, Inc., 142 So. 898, 106 Fla. 160 (Fla. 1932).

Pincite

Opinions

*161 Terrell, J.

The steps in the instant ease pertinent to a disposition of this appeal are as follows: Spofford, the appellant, filed his bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of Dade County seeking to restrain City National Building, Inc., from trespassing on his right of possession and use of a penthouse located on the roof of the City National Building, a ten-story office building in the city of Miami.

Answer to the bill was duly filed, a motion to amend the bill and strike the set-off or counterclaim contained in the answer were denied and a motion by complainant to dismiss the bill without prejudice was denied. Prom that decree this appeal was prosecuted.

Three assignments of error present this question: When a bill o'f complaint seeks to restrain a trespass on right embraced in an alleged verbal contract of employment and an answer is filed denying any such contract and setting up matters of defense in the nature of set-off or counterclaim should the complainant then be allowed to dismiss or amend his bill by striking that part relating to the cause of action and thereby prevent the defendant from obtaining a complete adjudication of the cause or should a motion to' strike the set-off or counterclaim be granted under such state of facts.

The matter of granting or denying these motions involved the discretion of the chancellor who answered each of them in the negative and his answer appears fully supported by the following decisions of this Court: Tilghman Cypress Co. vs. John R. Young Co., 60 Fla. 382, 53 So. 939; Mayfield vs. Wernicke Chemical Co., 65 Fla. 113, 61 So. 191; Town of Punta Gorda vs. Charlotte Realty & Inv. Co., 93 Fla. 253, 111 So. 631; Phillips vs. Lindsay, 102 Fla. 935, 136 So. 666.

In view of these decisions no- reversible error is shown to have been committed so the decree below must be and is hereby affirmed.

*162 Affirmed.

Whitfield, P.J., and Davis, J., concur. Buford, O.J., and Brown, J., concur in the opinion and judgment. Ellis, J., agrees to the affirmance.

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

*161 Terrell, J.

The steps in the instant ease pertinent to a disposition of this appeal are as follows: Spofford, the appellant, filed his bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of Dade County seeking to restrain City National Building, Inc., from trespassing on his right of possession and use of a penthouse located on the roof of the City National Building, a ten-story office building in the city of Miami.

Answer to the bill was duly filed, a motion to amend the bill and strike the set-off or counterclaim contained in the answer were denied and a motion by complainant to dismiss the bill without prejudice was denied. Prom that decree this appeal was prosecuted.

Three assignments of error present this question: When a bill o'f complaint seeks to restrain a trespass on right embraced in an alleged verbal contract of employment and an answer is filed denying any such contract and setting up matters of defense in the nature of set-off or counterclaim should the complainant then be allowed to dismiss or amend his bill by striking that part relating to the cause of action and thereby prevent the defendant from obtaining a complete adjudication of the cause or should a motion to' strike the set-off or counterclaim be granted under such state of facts.

The matter of granting or denying these motions involved the discretion of the chancellor who answered each of them in the negative and his answer appears fully supported by the following decisions of this Court: Tilghman Cypress Co. vs. John R. Young Co., 60 Fla. 382, 53 So. 939; Mayfield vs. Wernicke Chemical Co., 65 Fla. 113, 61 So. 191; Town of Punta Gorda vs. Charlotte Realty & Inv. Co., 93 Fla. 253, 111 So. 631; Phillips vs. Lindsay, 102 Fla. 935, 136 So. 666.

In view of these decisions no- reversible error is shown to have been committed so the decree below must be and is hereby affirmed.

*162 Affirmed.

Whitfield, P.J., and Davis, J., concur. Buford, O.J., and Brown, J., concur in the opinion and judgment. Ellis, J., agrees to the affirmance.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 So. 898, 106 Fla. 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spofford-v-city-national-building-inc-fla-1932.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack