METROPOLITAN ICE PALACE, INC.,
v.
H. B. TABER
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 a lower court's decree awarding damages for breach of contract, holding that a court of equity, having properly assumed jurisdiction, could adjudicate all matters in controversy, including legal claims.
Yes, a court of equity that properly assumes jurisdiction can adjudicate all questions involved in the controversy, even those that could have been brought in a court of law.
“When this is the case, the court first assuming jurisdiction will retain it and adjudicate all the questions in controversy.”
Establishes the principle of retention of jurisdiction by the first court to assume it.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMetropolitan Ice Palace, Inc. (appellant) was sued by H. B. Taber (appellee) for breach of an employment contract. The appellee sought damages, an acc…
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 Equitable Cognizance cases and more on FLexlaw
-The bill of complaint in this cause was filed by appellee as complainant and prayed recovery of stipulated damages for the breach of a contract of employment, for an accounting, the appointment of a receiver, and for an injunction. There was a decree for complainant in the sum of $2,650 for breach of the contract, and the cause was held in abeyance to later adjudicate other matters of *520equitable cognizance prayed for. This decree is here for review.
Several questions are urged for consideration but the real question is whether or not the cause was properly brought in a court of equity or should it have been brought in a court of law.
This question is sometimes difficult to answer because courts of law and courts of equity under our system have coordinate jurisdiction in some matters. When this is the case, the court first assuming jurisdiction will retain it and adjudicate all the questions in controversy. There was sufficient showing in the bill of complaint for a court of equity to. assume jurisdiction in this case and having done so, we find no reason why it should not adjudicate all questions involved. We think, however, that evidence should have been permitted on all matters of equitable cognizance and the whole case disposed of.
The judgment is therefore affirmed with directions to proceed accordingly.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Ci-iapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Bullington, 159 Fla. 618 (Fla. 1947)…l settled as not to require supporting authority, that when courts of law and equity have coordinate jurisdiction in a cause, the court first assuming jurisdiction will retain it and determine the whole controversy. Metropolitan Ice Palace v. Taber, 140 Fla. 519, 192 So. 179. Kooman’s Florida Chancery Pleading and Practice, Sec. 258, pages 285-587, 1946 Pocket Supplement, page 162. It was therefore proper that the ejectment suit be enjoined pending the disposition of the suit in equity. The charge of multi…