THE ARCADIA MERCANTILE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ALPHA BRANNING AND ELLA BRANNING, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's overruling of a demurrer to an equity bill filed by husband and wife against the Arcadia Mercantile Company, holding that the bill was not multifarious because the complainants had a common interest in the subject matter and sought a single distinct equitable remedy against a single defendant.
The bill of complaint is not multifarious. Where parties have a common interest in the subject litigation, share a relation growing out of that common interest, and allege a single distinct equity with specific relief sought against a single defendant, the bill is not subject to a demurrer for multifariousness.
“A bill of complaint may be deemed to be multifarious when it states distinct, separate and independent equities that can better be adjudicated in more than one suit.”
Establishes the legal standard for multifariousness in equity pleading.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlpha Branning, as owner in fee simple, conveyed land to his wife Ella for valuable consideration, and she took possession. The Arcadia Mercantile Com…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Cancellation Of Deed cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
The appellees, husband and wife, filed a bill in equity in the Circuit Court for DeSoto County against the appellant in which it is in substance alleged that Alpha was the owner in fee simple and in possession of certain described land, and for a valuable consideration moving from the wife conveyed the land to her and she took and holds possession; that the appellant here procured a judgment against J. H. Jenkins and Alpha Branning individually upon a service made only on J. B¡. Jenkins when no partnership relation existed between them; that the land was sold under an execution to the appellant. The prayer is for a cancellation of the judgment and deed of conveyance and for general relief. A demurrer to the bill was overruled and on appeal the sole contention is that the bill of complaint is multifarious.
A bill of complaint may be deemed to be multifarious when it states distinct, separate and independent equities that can better be adjudicated in more than one suit. Unless multifariousness clearly appears from the allega tions of a bill of complaint it is not subject to a demurrer on that ground. See Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla., 480, 49 South. Rep. 31.
Where the parties complainant in an equity proceeding have a common interest in the subject of the litigation and have some relation to each other growing out of the common interest and the allegations are of a single distinct equity as to which a specific relief is prayed against a single defendant, the bill of complaint is not multifarious.
Whether the husband or the wife was the real owner of the land, the allegations of the bill of complaint made them both proper parties complainant and the relief sought against a sole defendant is based upon allegations of a distinct equity.
The interlocutory order appealed from is affirmed.
Siíacklefoéd and Cockeell, J. J., concur;
Taylor, P. J., and ITocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. Taylor, 130 So. 713 (Fla. 1930)…5 Fla. 7, 77 So. R. 616; Mountein v. King, 75 Fla. 12, 77 So. R. 630; Carlton v. Hilliard,64 Fla. 228, 60 So. R. 260; Waldin v. Waldin, 98 Fla. 344, 123 So. R. 777; Moore v. Price, 123 So. R. 768, 98 Fla. 276. In Arcadia Mercantile Co. v. Branning, 59 Fla. 428, 52 So. R. 588, it was said: "A bill of complaint may be deemed multifarious when it states distinct, separate and independent equities that can be better adjudicated in more than one suit." However, we are inclined to the opinion that all the mat…
-
Crosby v. Andrews, 61 Fla. 554 (Fla. 1911)…plainants in the case, and it may be that their joinder as such renders the bill multifarious. Since this point is not raised I do not pass upon it, but see Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 South. Rep. 31, and Arcadia Mercantile Co. v. Branning, 59 Fla. 428, 52 South. Rep. 588. I do not see wherein the allegations in the bill as to the outstanding but unrecorded conveyances from McMillan to E. D. Beggs, from Beggs to Mattie E. McMillan and from A. M. McMillan to her, as to which it is not alleged that…
-
Reuben Carlton v. Hilliard, 64 Fla. 228 (Fla. 1912)…n and receiver. This does not render the bill multifarious as to subject matter, since the allegations do not state distinct, separate and independent equities that can better be adjudicated in more than one suit, Arcadia Mercantile Co. v. Branning, 59 Fla. 428, 52 South. Rep. 558; Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 South. Rep. 31. An accounting by one in possession of lands is a proper incident to the partition of the lands, while an injunction and a receiver are merely ancillary to the main purpose. S…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480 (Fla. 1909)