M. F. S. LAND CO.
v.
J. RAY ARNOLD CYPRESS CO. AND R. L. DOWLING
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.
M.F.S. Land Co. sought injunctive relief against J. Ray Arnold Cypress Co. and R.L. Dowling to prevent trespass on timber lands. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to present evidence after the time for taking testimony had expired, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed.
The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that when a complainant fails to present evidence in support of its bill after the time for taking testimony has expired and the defendant files a responsive answer denying the material allegations, the bill may be dismissed.
“it appearing to the Court that the time for taking testimony in the cause as provided by the rules of this Court has long since elapsed, and that no testimony has been taken by the Complainant in support of its bill”
Establishes the factual basis for dismissal—that the complainant failed to present evidence within the prescribed time period.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceComplainant filed a bill of complaint on March 12, 1931, seeking temporary and permanent injunctions against trespassing on timber lands. A restrainin…
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 Answer cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case the bill of complaint was filed March 12, 1931, praying for temporary and permanent injunctions from trespassing upon timber lands. A restraining order was issued March 12, 1931. On March 18, 1931, a demurrer, an answer and a motion to dissolve the restraining order were separately filed by the principal defendant. No testimony was taken. On July 19, 1932, the defendant set the case down for final hearing on bill and answer after the cause was at issue and the time for taking testimony had expired. On July 29, 1932, the chancellor rendered the following:
“Final Decree.
“The above entitled cause having come on this day for healing on bill and answer on notice of Defendant, J. Ray Arnold Cypress Company, setting said cause down for hearing on bill and answer, and it appearing to the Court that the time for taking testimony in the cause as provided *153by the rules of this Court has long since elapsed, and that no testimony has been taken by the Complainant in support of its bill, and it appearing to the Court that the answer filed by the Defendant, J. Ray Arnold Cypress Company, is in all things' responsive to the bill and denies all the material allegations thereof, and the Court being otherwise fully advised, it is thereupon, upon consideration thereof, Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the complainant take nothing by this suit, and that the bill of complaint herein be and the same is hereby Dismissed at the cost of Complainant.”
The complainant appealed.
The decree should be affirmed on the authority of Zewadski v. Dyal, et al., 78 Fla. 109, 82 So. 846; Mayfield v. Wernicke Chemical Co., 65 Fla. 113, 61 So. 191; Myers v. Julian, 57 Fla. 493, 48 So. 998.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ennis v. Giblin, 147 Fla. 113 (Fla. 1941)…bill. The rule is that when a case is heard on bill and answer all the averments of the answer are to be taken as true. See Godwin v. Phifer, 51 Fla. 441, 41 Sou. 597, and cases there cited; M. F. S. Co. v. J. Ray Arnold Cypress Co., 115 Fla. 151, 155 Sou. 118. The court entered its decree dismissing the bill of complaint. In Lucy v. Deas, et al., 59 Fla. 552, 52 Sou. 515, it was held: “Where the court is legally organized and has jurisdiction of the subject matter and adversary parties are given an op…
Authorities Cited
- Mayfield v. The Wernicke Chem. Co., 65 Fla. 113 (Fla. 1913)
- Myers v. Julian, 57 Fla. 493 (Fla. 1909)
- Zewadski v. Dyal, 78 Fla. 109 (Fla. 1919)