Wynn v. Winsen Ltd.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wynn v. Winsen Ltd.

246 So. 2d 639, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6834

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 2, 1971

DocketNo. 70-632

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 246 So. 2d 639 (Wynn v. Winsen Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wynn v. Winsen Ltd., 246 So. 2d 639, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6834 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By interlocutory appeal we are asked to review an order denying appellant Wynn’s motion for summary judgment as to Count II of the complaint.

The complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages. Count I alleged that the defendants, acting pursuant to a conspiracy, carried into effect a scheme to defraud the plaintiff of its assets by the device of gaining control over the corporate affairs and diverting its assets to the defendants’ personal use. Count II was essentially identical with the additional allegation that the defendants had gained control of the plaintiff corporation through fraudulent means. Although the complaint prayed that the defendants be enjoined from filing suits against the plaintiff, the cause of action was and remains simply a tort action for damages rather than an action formerly cognizable in equity. As such, the order denying defendant Wynn’s motion for summary judgment on Count II is not reviewable under Rule 4.2, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A. It may be reviewed upon full appeal from final judgment if properly assigned as error.

The appeal is dismissed.

CROSS, C. J., and OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

By interlocutory appeal we are asked to review an order denying appellant Wynn’s motion for summary judgment as to Count II of the complaint.

The complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages. Count I alleged that the defendants, acting pursuant to a conspiracy, carried into effect a scheme to defraud the plaintiff of its assets by the device of gaining control over the corporate affairs and diverting its assets to the defendants’ personal use. Count II was essentially identical with the additional allegation that the defendants had gained control of the plaintiff corporation through fraudulent means. Although the complaint prayed that the defendants be enjoined from filing suits against the plaintiff, the cause of action was and remains simply a tort action for damages rather than an action formerly cognizable in equity. As such, the order denying defendant Wynn’s motion for summary judgment on Count II is not reviewable under Rule 4.2, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A. It may be reviewed upon full appeal from final judgment if properly assigned as error.

The appeal is dismissed.

CROSS, C. J., and OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 So. 2d 639, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wynn-v-winsen-ltd-fladistctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack