STATE BOARD OF CONTROL, APPELLANT,
v.
KING LUMBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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 State Board of Control appealed the overruling of its demurrer to a bill of complaint filed by King Lumber Company seeking equitable relief for disputes arising from a construction contract. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the bill failed to allege sufficient grounds for equity cognizance where an adequate remedy at law existed.
The court held that where a bill of complaint shows on its face that there is a plain and adequate remedy at law with no ground for equitable intervention, the demurrer should be sustained and the bill dismissed, even if the demurrer does not state appropriate grounds.
“Where it appears upon the face of a bill of complaint that' there is a plain and adequate remedy at law, and no ground for equitable intervention is shown, an appellate [*82] court may notice such defect although it has been ignored in the pleadings, assignments of error and argument, and the cause may be remanded with directions to dismiss the bill.”
Establishes the rule that appellate courts may sua sponte notice lack of equitable jurisdiction when remedy at law is adequate, regardless of how parties framed the issue.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKing Lumber Company contracted with the State Board of Control to erect a building. The company claimed a balance was due on the contract and filed an…
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 Action At Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
The King Lumber Company brought suit in equity against The State Board of Control and the Lumber Manufacturing Company and alleged in effect that the State Board of Control entered into a written contract with the complainant for the erection by complainant of a building; that á balance is due complainant on said contract; that an action at law has been brought by complainant against the State Board of Control to recover the balance claimed.; that materials used under the contract were furnished by the Lumber Manufacturing Company; that the Lumber Manufacturing Company failed to deliver certain portions of the materials at the time when required under the contract with it, thereby delaying the coriipletion of the building in the time specified in the contract with the State Board of Control; that the State Board of Control resists payment of the balance claimed on the ground of demurrage allowances for delay in completing the building; that the Lumber Manufacturing Company has brought an action at law for the balance claimed by it from complainant, and claims that the delay charged to it was caused by the architect of the Board of Control; that Complainant cannot properly defend the action by the Lumber Manufacturing Company until the ad judication, in complainant’s action against the State Board of Control; that the prosecution of the two actions at law will put complainant to useless expense; that therefore complainant prays that equity take jurisdiction and grant an accounting by both defendants with appropriate restraining orders, and final relief. The State Board of Control demurred on the ground that the suit is in effect one against the State in violation of law. This demurrer was overruled, and the State Board of Control appealed.
Where it appears upon the face of a bill of complaint that' there is a plain and adequate remedy at law, and no ground for equitable intervention is shown, an appellate court may notice such defect although it has been ignored in the pleadings, assignments of error and argument, and the cause may be remanded with directions to dismiss the bill. Williams, Adm’r v. Peeples, 48 Fla. 316, 37 South. Rep. 572; City of Jacksonville v. Massey Business College, 47 Fla. 339, 36 South. Rep. 432.
In this case the remedy at law is apparently adequate and no sufficient ground is alleged for equity cognizance. This being so, the Circuit Judge should have sustained the demurrer even though no appropriate ground was stated in the demurrer. Order reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford, and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Guernsey v. Haley, 107 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)…mportant public interest. See 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals § 290, page 538; 3 Am.Jur., Appeal and Error, § 251, page 35; First National Bank of Alex v. Southland Production Company, 1841, 189 Old. 9, 112 P. 2d 1087; State Board of Control v. King Lumber Co., 73 Fla. 80, 74 So. 5; Board of Com’rs of Kingfisher County v. Vahlberg, 198 Old. 527, 180 P. 2d 144; United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 56 S.Ct. 391, 80 L.Ed. 555.” If the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought, the appellate court may, on appea…
-
Ewing v. Dupee, 104 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)…mportant public interest. See 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals § 290, page 538; 3 Am.Jur., Appeal and Error, § 251, page 35; First National Bank of Alex v. Southland Production Company, 1841, 189 Okl. 9, 112 P. 2d 1087; State Board of Control v. King Lumber Co., 73 Fla. 80, 74 So. 5; Board of Com’rs of Kingfisher County v. Vahlberg, 198 Okl. 527, 180 P. 2d 144; United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 56 S.Ct. 391, 80 L.Ed. 555. The ordinance establishing the retirement system in the City of Lake Worth has the follow…
-
Town OF Lake Hamilton v. Hughes, 154 Fla. 468 (Fla. 1944)…a sufficient answer in bar ? It has long been the. established holding in this Court that if the bill is bad this Court of its own violition will order its dismissal regardless of whether it has been attacked. State Bd. of Control v. King Lum. Co., 73 Fla. 80, 74 So. 5; Williams, Admr. v. Peoples, 48 Fla. 316, 37 So. 572; O’Neil v. Percival, et al., 25 Fla. 118, 5 So. 809. The showing made by the bill is, in reality, an improvident and ill advised act of the Legislature in 1925; that no referendum was a…
Authorities Cited
- The City of Jacksonville v. The Massey Bus. Coll., 47 Fla. 339 (Fla. 1904)
- Williams v. Peeples, 48 Fla. 316 (Fla. 1904)