GEORGE P. MORRIS, AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF J. W. MAY AND M. M. MAY, COPARTNERS, ETC., DOING BUSINESS AS J. W. MAY & COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
PHIFER STATE BANK, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Fla. | 1925-06-24
West, C. J., and Whitfield and Strum, J. J., concur.
90 Fla. 55 Florida Supreme Court (1925) Caution
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

A bankruptcy trustee appealed the dismissal of an equity bill under Florida's three-year rule for undisposed cases. The court affirmed dismissal, holding that the trustee's failure to prosecute the case within three years, coupled with lack of sufficient cause shown to excuse the delay, warranted dismissal under Equity Rule No. 1.


Holding

The court held that Equity Rule No. 1 plainly requires dismissal of any chancery cause not disposed of within three years from filing, unless cause is shown. The trustee's explanation regarding judicial and counsel absences and courtesies between counsel did not constitute sufficient cause to excuse the delay, and dismissal was properly ordered.


Key Quotes

“Any cause not disposed of within three years from the filing of the bill shall be dismissed by the court at the cost of the plaintiff, unless otherwise directed for cause shown.”

States the mandatory rule requiring dismissal after three years unless cause is demonstrated

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

J. W. May and M. M. May, copartners doing business as J. W. May & Company, filed an equity bill. The case remained pending on demurrer for more than f…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Terrell, J.

Terrell, J.

This appeal is from a final decree dismissing the bill of complaint as authorized by Equity Rule No. 1 for the government of the Circuit Courts of Florida in Equity. That part of Equity Rule No. 1 pertinent to the issue raised here is as follows:

“Any cause not disposed of within three years from the filing of the bill shall be dismissed by the court at the cost of the plaintiff, unless otherwise directed for cause shown. Upon application and notice within a, reasonable time, not exceeding one year, the cause may be reinstated upon the docket, in the discretion of the court. ’ ’

The provisions of this rule, like all others vesting large discretion in the chancellor, are to be enforced with caution. The complainant is required by it to exercise reasonable diligence in all matters designed to expedite litigation and must not be deterred in this except by consideration of his own safety and the duty he owes to his adversary. Failure on the part of a complainant for an indefinite period of time to prosecute his suit operates as an abandonment of the litigation and is fatal to his right to renew and carry it on. McCarty v. McCarty, 65 Fla. 332, 61 South. Rep. 627; Perry v. Wittich, 37 Fla. 237, 20 South. Rep. 238.

It is contended by appellee that the motion to dismiss should have been denied because under the rule such mo tions can only be made in term time, while the motion under consideration was made in vacation.

"We do not think the rule susceptible of such interpretation, since under the law of our State chancery courts are open at all times for the consideration of matters properly presented to them. Motion to dismiss under Equity Rule No. 1 as above may be submitted and disposed of at any time. See. 3104, Rev. Gen. Stats, of Florida, Chancery Rule 2, page 95, Compiled Rules of Practice.

The rule under consideration is plain and unambiguous in its terms, and it decrees that “unless otherwise directed for cause shown,” all actions in chancery not disposed of within three years from the filing of the bill shall be dismissed at the cost of the .plaintiff. Councel for appellant filed his affidavit with certain supporting evidence resisting the motion to dismiss. This affidavit recites the history of the ease, tells of not being able to get it before the court on account of the absence of the judge and attorneys from the Circuit, relates numerous courtesies extended by counsel for both sides to each other, besides conflicts in their engagements. If this was a question of showing industry and a fine spirit on the part of counsel, a complete defense would perhaps be raised; but as against the clear provisions of the rule such defense is not “cause shown” why'the bill should not be dismissed when it has been standing on demurrer for more than four j-ears.

The decree of the chancellor dismissing the bill is affirmed.

West, C. J., and Whitfield and Strum, J. J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Hancock v. Maude Lane Hancock, 128 Fla. 684 (Fla. 1937)
    …nable time, not exceeding one year, the cause may be reinstated upon the docket, in the discretion of the court.” In the cases of Perry v. Wittich, 37 Fla. 237, 20 Sou. 238; McCarty v. McCarty, 65 Fla. 332, 61 Sou. 627; Morris v. Phifer State Bank, 90 Fla. 55, 105 Sou. 150, this Court held that since nothing had been done for a period of over three years towards the final disposition of the cause, that the motion to dismiss the cause.should have been granted under Equity Rule 1. In each of the cited case…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw