Town of Lake Hamilton v. Hughes

18 So. 2d 23, 154 Fla. 468, 1944 Fla. LEXIS 734
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided May 16, 1944·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

The bill of complaint in this case was inartifically drawn, and it occurs to us that had an attack been made upon it by a motion to dismiss, the movant would probably have prevailed. We have thé view that the answer, too, was subject to some criticism for the same reasons. Wherefore, we believe that the answer was sufficient in the light of the apparent deficiencies of the bill. Therefore, certiorari is granted and the order sustaining the motion to strike parts of'the answer is quashed.

BUFORD, C. J., and ADAMS, J., concur specially. TERRELL, BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur. CHAPMAN, J.j dissents.

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

Town of Lake Hamilton v. Hughes, 18 So. 2d 23, 154 Fla. 468, 1944 Fla. LEXIS 734 (Fla. 1944).

18 So. 2d 23 (Town of Lake Hamilton v. Hughes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

General Properties Co. Inc. v. Rellim Investment Co.
9 So. 2d 295 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1942)
City of Sarasota v. Skillin
178 So. 837 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
State of Florida Ex Rel. Davis v. City of Stuart
120 So. 335 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1929)
O'Neil v. Percival
25 Fla. 118 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1889)
Williams v. Peeples
48 Fla. 316 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1904)
State Board of Control v. King Lumber Co.
74 So. 5 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1917)